Ashley's taken £11m out of the club in 2012

[Happy Face 29]

I've not downloaded the accounts for last year (are they available?) and I don't think any of the news stories that announced last years figures mentioned this. I just found out off Twitter....

 

Brian McNally ‏@McNallyMirror 10 Apr

Gross debt at #nufc when Ashley took over in 2007=£77m- now £129m. He cleared off a mortgage & other external debt. Debt now all owed to him

 

Chris Holt ‏@bigchrisholt 43m

@McNallyMirror where are your numbers from?

 

 

 

Brian McNally ‏@McNallyMirror 29m

@bigchrisholt The Newcastle United financial figures are from @swissramble

 

Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble 23m

@McNallyMirror @bigchrisholt Chris, the figures on your chart (one of mine!) are a year out-of date. Debt cut 11m in 2012 from 140m to 129m.

 

Chris Holt ‏@bigchrisholt 8m

@SwissRamble So Ashley paid himself back £11m last year and still turned a profit?

 

Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble 6m

@bigchrisholt Exactly right.

 

Higher than any dividend Shepherd and co ever took...combined.

[Andrew 4257]

so for those of us with no mind for this sort of thing

 

what does that actually mean? detriment to the club? is it his money and he's rightfully taking some back now?

[Happy Face 29]

so for those of us with no mind for this sort of thing

 

what does that actually mean? detriment to the club? is it his money and he's rightfully taking some back now?

 

How rightful it is or not is open to question. He's put money into the business, so he's entitled to take money out when it turns a profit.

 

What I question is the fact we spent so little in summer 2012 and paid the price for it.

 

....and the fact that this hasn't been mentioned in any press I've read....after all the talk of "not taking a penny out of the club" all the reports have only mentioned a million or 2 of profits.

[Happy Face 29]

from what i gather he took 11m but it didn't come off our "debt" to him,

 

It did come off the clubs debt to him, so the club is better off for that.

 

Question is would you ratther have £140m debt and a strike partner for Cisse, or £129m of debt?

[ewerk 26733]

Or he wrote off £11m of the debt?

[Happy Face 29]

Or he wrote off £11m of the debt?

 

No, I don't think that is what Swiss Ramble says above. I specifically asked if Ashley had paid himself the money owed to him as debt, and he says that's exactly right.

 

If he'd written off £11m he and Ashley would be singing from the rooftops about it, not keeping quiet.

[ewerk 26733]

Taken from NO last week.

 

He had an original loan of £111m but added cash advances of £29m in 2009 &2010(taking it to £140m) which were payable within 36/48 months i think. In the current years accounts his loan was £129m showing the first repayment of £11m had been taken before 30 June 2012. The accounts include a note saying he will take the other £18m in the current year to 30 June 2013 taking his loan balance back to £111m. Guess we will find out in 12 months whether there are any plans to repay any of the original loan back or not which is something he has said he wouldnt do.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,93808.100.html

[Happy Face 29]

Cheers Ewerk...didn't know there was another £18m coming out this year too.

 

Very interesting.

[ewerk 26733]

http://www.nufcblog.org/nufc-accounts-2011-12.pdf

 

Pages 21 and 22, I guess we know now where the extra money from the new TV deal is going...

[ewerk 26733]

I'm pretty sure that, if questioned on it, Llambias will claim that we were already spending £6m a year to finance our debt before Mike 'rescued' us out of the goodness of his heart.

[Ugly Mackems 133]

Sell Tiote and we'll only owe £17.5m

[Toonpack 6985]

 

 

Higher than any dividend Shepherd and co ever took...combined.

 

Taking back money you originally put in is monumentally different to taking dividends, you do realise that don't you?

 

 

[Happy Face 29]

 

Taking back money you originally put in is monumentally different to taking dividends, you do realise that don't you?

 

Think I have said as much.

[ewerk 26733]

In its latest report, Forbes now values us at £172m, the 20th mot valuable club in the world.

[2bias 3]

In its latest report, Forbes now values us at £172m, the 20th mot valuable club in the world.

Shows how much can change in a few years, £80 million three years ago. The club is going in the right direction.

[Happy Face 29]

mmmmmm....."valuable mot"

[ewerk 26733]

Shows how much can change in a few years, £80 million three years ago. The club is going in the right direction.

 

In 2009 they valued us at £199m.

 

These lists are always to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[scoobos 297]

This is many foreign owners trick. Roman A at chelsea has done a magnificent job.

 

Money into the company is marked as a loan - so Roman hasn't put anything into Chelsea - Chelsea is in massive debt to Roman, with a very unfavourable interest rate.

 

Same with NUFC and Ashley.

 

Always annoyed me in the media when they talk about foreign owners "buying players" - they are not, they are financing the club at cost and the club is buying players.

 

If Roman wanted to , he could force Chelsea into liquidation and perhaps even turn a long term profit on his loans.

 

My view.

Edited April 18, 2013 by scoobos

[Happy Face 29]

Ashley isn't charging any interest whatsoever mate.

[scoobos 297]

That's very nice if true (i'm not saying its not, I just don't know how you could tell).

 

I thought he'd be too shrewd a businessman to at least not charge the equivalent inflation value.

 

Chelsea are screwed though, I remember reading that Roman had them at 4.5% interest on his money - given that they've spent hundreds of millions its scary for them. I always smile when the fans get anywhere near attacking Roman in the stands (The guy's a real crim imo.)

[Happy Face 29]

That's very nice if true (i'm not saying its not, I just don't know how you could tell).

 

I thought he'd be too shrewd a businessman to at least not charge the equivalent inflation value.

 

Chelsea are screwed though, I remember reading that Roman had them at 4.5% interest on his money - given that they've spent hundreds of millions its scary for them. I always smile when the fans get anywhere near attacking Roman in the stands (The guy's a real crim imo.)

 

Ashley is dutybound to release accounts every year, it's all detailed in there. The club has not been paying him anything in interest.

 

There are many things to abuse him for, but he's also made some very good decisions for the financial benefit of the club. Even before he turned to public enemy number one and got us relegated he had transferred all the debt to himself and waved any interest.

[scoobos 297]

I'm a company director and I am duty bound to release accounts every year and I don't detail any interest on directors loans.I just have to fill out a CT61 so the interest is taxable (this is personal tax, not corporation tax)

 

The interest just gets lumped all under the same category of non-re-imbursable expenses.

 

Caveats here - I'm not an accountant and only run a LTD company.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm a company director and I am duty bound to release accounts every year and I don't detail any interest on directors loans.I just have to fill out a CT61 so the interest is taxable (this is personal tax, not corporation tax)

 

The interest just gets lumped all under the same category of non-re-imbursable expenses.

 

Caveats here - I'm not an accountant and only run a LTD company.

 

No doubt it can be lumped in, but the accounts specifically state the loans are non-interest bearing...

 

 

I think Ashley is more interested in a stable financial ship than Abramovich is. I don't think he wants to sell in particular, but if buyers start looking around the league again, he wants to be best placed to attract them.....explicitly stating that no interest is being paid helps on that front.

 

I don't think anyone will be buying Chelsea any time soon.

[Christmas Tree 4001]

Not the same at all. Ashley's loans are interest free.

[ewerk 26733]

I don't think Abramovich is using Chelsea to make money. Given that he has either written off or converted into equity around £900 million of his loans.