Kid Dynamite 5890 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2013/01/28/72703-32695156/? No wonder Ashley has spent £12mil. He would be fucked if we got relegated again and lost the majority of that income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Doesn't the parachute payment not cover 3 years if we are relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14528 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Wonder what the figures are for the whole of the league?....what percentage of revenue is broadcasting for a club like Wigan?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugly Mackems 133 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 But, for every place we can move North from here is worth £500k Next season TV money will go SKY high with the new deal. Probably wise to do your business now than what will no doubt be a complete greed-fest come the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Sadly these days over the last 5 years, Tottenham have financially moved away from us, and no doubt if we had a proper business man with the clubs best interests at heart, our turnover would be £160m like Spurs. We were £30m above them 10 years ago. We're ran like a corner shop with the objective being profit making. It's a sad reality than financially we are only the 7th biggest club in this country, but the figures still show we're a long way above Everton and Aston Villa (£15m+), who a lot of people regard as similar sized clubs. The sad reality is we were making more money 10 years ago than we are now, I'd say our profile is as low as it's has been for the last 20 years, but we should still be outperforming Everton. Our turnover in the Championship was £52m, that's nearly double what Leeds United's is. The brand Newcastle United was far far far above Tottenham 10 years ago, Everton pmsl they didn't even get a mention, but sadly that's the level (or slightly above) we're at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1115 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I said on one of the other threads that I think one of the other considerations if we go down will be that we will lose a lot of money when we have to sell players for a fraction of their worth. There is absolutely no chance that the likes of Ben Arfa and Cabaye will stay if we go down and you know that we won't get as much for them in that situation. The combination of this and the loss in TV money are the reasons for Ashley finally acting. He couldn't care less what division we are in for anything other than financial reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I said on one of the other threads that I think one of the other considerations if we go down will be that we will lose a lot of money when we have to sell players for a fraction of their worth. There is absolutely no chance that the likes of Ben Arfa and Cabaye will stay if we go down and you know that we won't get as much for them in that situation. The combination of this and the loss in TV money are the reasons for Ashley finally acting. He couldn't care less what division we are in for anything other than financial reasons. Absolutely. That is the only reason we've signed these players. I can never stress enough that the actual success of Newcastle United is secondary to the financial success of the club, it always will be till they sell. It's a sad day for all of them when money leaves the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1115 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The other thing is that I think they've realised that there was a great opportunity to sign these players for less than their value which increases the profit we can make when we sell them. Mbiwa had an agreement with Montpelier that they would accept a reasonable price when he signed a new contract with them, Sissoko and Gouffran were both coming to the end of the their deals and Haidara was playing for a team staring relegation in the face so they could easily lose money on him if they waited. Selling these players on at a profit in the future will unfortunately always be part of our decision making process now. This isn't necessarily a bad thing given the amounts we've lost on the likes of Luque, Boumsong and Owen in the past. But if the money isn't always put back into the squad then it only benefits one person! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The ruski at Chelsea is happy to pump loads in as long as they win things.Ashley want's his money out eventially so he has a different agenda.Surviving in the prem will help Ashley's plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Mind this is probably a moment where Ashley can say his plan is working. Previously when he was facing a relegation battle as a businessman he could not afford the risk of pouring any money into the transfer kitty. The fact that this season he could have a look at how we competed up until christmas, and then when it wasn't good enough, the club could afford to buy it's own way (hopefully) out of trouble, with what look like cost effective purchases, without Ashley having to bail it out, that's what I would imagine he and llambias would say is the perfect model for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) If there does come a time when Ashley had got his money back,will he then look to sell,or will he stay put and run a tight ship. Edited January 28, 2013 by essembeeofsunderland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1115 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I think he'd sell in a shot if the right offer came in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 If there does come a time when Ashley had got his money back,will he then look to sell,or will he stay put and run a tight ship. They reckon it's going to be a £10m profit returned for 11/12. 15 years before income of that amount would be enough to repay his loans. But as the plan is not to pay off any loans, I'm sure it's not a consideration. The plan will always be to hold on until an offer comes in that will return a profit. The value of the club will increase when the new deal kicks in if we're in the top flight...it would need to be £300m+ to get Ashley interested though...not sure the appetite is in the market at the moment. Clubs aren't changing hands like they were 5-10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) He probably bought NUFC as a plaything then realised the mess we were in.I agree,i think he will get rid as soon as he can get his money out.I wonder if Fat Freddy will give him a call when the time/money is right.Is he not owed something like £100m Edited January 28, 2013 by essembeeofsunderland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 It's the only way he's going to make his money back and even at that it'd take a hell of an offer for him to break even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 He probably bought NUFC as a plaything then realised the mess we were in.I agree,i think he will get rid as soon as he can get his money out.I wonder if Fat Freddy will give him a call when the time/money is right.Is he not owed something like £100m Ashley bought the club - including all of its debts - from Shepherd and Hall. One of the loan covenants stated that the loan was repayable in the event of a change in ownership. Therefore Ashley was bound by contract to pay the full cost of the loan back (about £140m) immediately. Mike Ashley knew this was the case up front, so in substance he'll treat it as part of his purchase price. The loan from Ashley to NUFC (£140m) is stated as a loan because he paid it back after acquisition of the club. If MA was to sell the club, he would want to recoup the sum paid to Shepherd an Hall as well as the cost of repaying the Barclays loan - this is essentially the acquisition cost in MA's eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Sadly these days over the last 5 years, Tottenham have financially moved away from us, and no doubt if we had a proper business man with the clubs best interests at heart, our turnover would be £160m like Spurs. We were £30m above them 10 years ago. We're ran like a corner shop with the objective being profit making. It's a sad reality than financially we are only the 7th biggest club in this country, but the figures still show we're a long way above Everton and Aston Villa (£15m+), who a lot of people regard as similar sized clubs. The sad reality is we were making more money 10 years ago than we are now, I'd say our profile is as low as it's has been for the last 20 years, but we should still be outperforming Everton. Our turnover in the Championship was £52m, that's nearly double what Leeds United's is. The brand Newcastle United was far far far above Tottenham 10 years ago, Everton pmsl they didn't even get a mention, but sadly that's the level (or slightly above) we're at the moment. We're we making more money 10 years ago or Turning over more? Its something Im unsure about. I agree with much that has been said. Also agree we are being ran like a corner shop. Freddie Fletcher was brilliant at striking up deals, the impression I get are that our two are barrow boys. This said, I could imagine (no real justification) that MA has us being ran more profitable while FS has us running with a higher turnover. Biggest significant difference though is where it counts. FS was willing to put the club in debt to push on while MA wont. I dont think either is right/wrong and each has their merit. You can do too much of both. alll said though, I do come back to saying why pay £10M for a player you can pay £2M for (if the same player). We clearly would rather wait 12months before buying someone if it knocks 75% off their value due to contracts ended. We buy smartly, that is clear. But I dont think we sell the club to investors smartly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Ashley bought the club - including all of its debts - from Shepherd and Hall. One of the loan covenants stated that the loan was repayable in the event of a change in ownership. Therefore Ashley was bound by contract to pay the full cost of the loan back (about £140m) immediately. Mike Ashley knew this was the case up front, so in substance he'll treat it as part of his purchase price. The loan from Ashley to NUFC (£140m) is stated as a loan because he paid it back after acquisition of the club. If MA was to sell the club, he would want to recoup the sum paid to Shepherd an Hall as well as the cost of repaying the Barclays loan - this is essentially the acquisition cost in MA's eyes. Quoting that amount as inherited debt when he bought the club is very generous to Ashley BW. The loan he had to pay back upon purchase was half of that amount. He then spent tens of millions in his first transfer window, incurred £20m, £15m and £17m loss making seasons and got us relegated all of which he had to cover with additional loans from his own pocket. This is what has added up to the £150m debt we currently have....on top of the purchase price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 We're we making more money 10 years ago or Turning over more? Its something Im unsure about. I agree with much that has been said. Also agree we are being ran like a corner shop. Freddie Fletcher was brilliant at striking up deals, the impression I get are that our two are barrow boys. This said, I could imagine (no real justification) that MA has us being ran more profitable while FS has us running with a higher turnover. Biggest significant difference though is where it counts. FS was willing to put the club in debt to push on while MA wont. I dont think either is right/wrong and each has their merit. You can do too much of both. alll said though, I do come back to saying why pay £10M for a player you can pay £2M for (if the same player). We clearly would rather wait 12months before buying someone if it knocks 75% off their value due to contracts ended. We buy smartly, that is clear. But I dont think we sell the club to investors smartly. FS was completely wrong in his approach in that he ran the club completely dry, borrowed to the absolute limit whilst paying himself and his fellow board members millions and millions in dividends. A manageable amount of debt is fine, but FS advocated using debt alone to fund the club. He didn't put a single penny in of his own money. Ashley's approach is to make the club self-sufficient. He has already funded the club with £50m on top of repaying the original Barclays loan and has taken nothing out of the club (although it could be argued that the SD advertising for free is equivalent to a decent salary for him). I'd go as far as saying FS's approach was completely flawed and extremely risky, hence the club being on the verge of bankruptcy when it was taken over by Ashley. MA's approach has its flaws, but it's fundamentals are very much founded on sensible strategic decisions and long term stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Quoting that amount as inherited debt when he bought the club is very generous to Ashley BW. The loan he had to pay back upon purchase was half of that amount. He then spent tens of millions in his first transfer window, incurred £20m, £15m and £17m loss making seasons and got us relegated all of which he had to cover with additional loans from his own pocket. This is what has added up to the £150m debt we currently have....on top of the purchase price. You're right - the original loan was around £90-100m (can't remember the exact number) with an additional £50m lent to the club during the year we were relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugly Mackems 133 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I wouldn't say selling Carroll and Ba see's us as a selling Club. Not a single Club in theWorld wuoldn't have sold a player the quality of Carroll for £35m. An extraordinary and extortianate amount of money. And as we know Ba had his clause. Maybe we learn not to allow players to dictate the terms of their own exit. After this season when the likes of Xisco departs the Club will have a squad of decent players, the right age, on decent quality wages that suit their level of performance. When folk raise their eyebrows at 6.5 year contracts its actually a decent way of taking the club forward. You only have to be careful you get it right a lot more than you get it wrong which seems to be happening at the moment. Ashley (was it Llambias) mentioned 'purple players' and suggested NUFC will carry 11 - a first team in effect. If this season has taught him anything is that 11 isn't enough and will need at least 18 so those stepping in doesn't equal a dramatic loss in quality which everyone can see happened this season. NUFC now for the first time in how many years have 2 left backs. 4 central defenders and 2 right backs. Thats cover right along the backline. Midfield is well stocked and for me we're dramitically short up front. If Cisse gets a long term injury ..... What NUFC need now is a top rate coach. Get rid of Pardew and take a step up. A coach who is happy to work with the players he is given and get the best out of them. No more buying players like Anita from Ajax and integrating him into the team that is statistically playing 'long-ball' more than any other Club in the league. It makes no sense whatsoever. Out of interest how much say do folk think Pardew gets in the choice of incoming players? Very very little I'd suggest if you look at the tactics v players bought. It can't go on much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 We're we making more money 10 years ago or Turning over more? Its something Im unsure about. Profits are up. Turnover isn't. TV money has almost trebled from just over £20m to just shy of £60m since 2005. That will increase by another 50% next season to over £80m. Turnover (having fallen drastically) has just returned to the £90m mark. Wages having increased out of hand, have only been returned to the £50m mark (but are on the rise again) Losses have been wiped out with the increased TV cash and the reduced wage. The big profit from last year was from th Carroll sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 FS was completely wrong in his approach in that he ran the club completely dry, borrowed to the absolute limit whilst paying himself and his fellow board members millions and millions in dividends. A manageable amount of debt is fine, but FS advocated using debt alone to fund the club. He didn't put a single penny in of his own money. Ashley's approach is to make the club self-sufficient. He has already funded the club with £50m on top of repaying the original Barclays loan and has taken nothing out of the club (although it could be argued that the SD advertising for free is equivalent to a decent salary for him). I'd go as far as saying FS's approach was completely flawed and extremely risky, hence the club being on the verge of bankruptcy when it was taken over by Ashley. MA's approach has its flaws, but it's fundamentals are very much founded on sensible strategic decisions and long term stability. What did FFS do wrong up to 2004. Someone will have to explain this to me. Even this "debt", the majority of it was the mortgage on Level 7 which was £115m. It's not like he'd been in fucking Grosvenor and blew it all on red or black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 It's selective though asking what Shepherd did until 2004 though. Can't praise the board enough up until that period but if you're going to do so then you also need to give them criticism for the monumental fuck ups that happened after that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 What did FFS do wrong up to 2004. Someone will have to explain this to me. Even this "debt", the majority of it was the mortgage on Level 7 which was £115m. It's not like he'd been in fucking Grosvenor and blew it all on red or black. The multi-million dividend in 2003 when we only signed Bowyer is one thing. 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