Matt

Will be interesting when that number eventually emerges and whether they really are paying or if that was just another lie to placate the fans' forum.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick mate. Debenhams, Game, House of Fraser- all of that is owned via SD. Ashley hasn't personally been buying these businesses, although the headlines always talk about him. It's done through SD with money generated by SD's operations (or through their own borrowings from their bank group) and didn't involve any of Ashley's personal funds. Because SD is a plc they have to be very transparent about dealings with their major shareholders so we know Ashley has not put money in or out of SD in recent years. Despite the problems of Debenhams, SD is still massively cash generative. True SD have benefited from free coverage over the years, but bear in mind this is a company with total share value of £1.4bn. I've no idea what the fair rate is for advertising around the ground but a decent benchmark is that Fun88 supposedly pay £8m a year and they get the best package of anyone in having their logo on the shirts as well as everything else. They've certainly been helped, but again need to keep things in context.

You've got that the wrong way round. SD is bigger and more profitable than NUFC and SD doesn't have anything akin to relegation threatening to slash its revenues in the space of a couple of months. To put the supposed asking price of £350m into context, that's roughly the operating cashflow of SD over the last 12 months.

At the minute Ashley is making no cash from SD (Debenhams, HoF etc being part of that rather than owned by him directly) as SD haven't paid a dividend in years. I think if SD continues to underperform due to adventures outside their comfort zone then it's got to be tempting to take it private again and at that point he'll need to have as much cash to hand as possible.

You mean the one a national journo claimed vehemently was a done deal? Yes, I think that holds more water than random joining of dots without anything to back it up. FWIW, if Khaled is seen as 'the same' as the Abu Dhabi state, then no deal could take place because they already have a club in the league.

It's majority owned by Khaled's relatives through the Abu Dhabi Investment Council. So not him then. Plus, there's no clarification of what the 'link' is between this bank and the Malaysians. This fund is huge- it will be invested in all sorts of projects where financing is provided by banks all over the world.

The high street acquisition spree has taken quite a toll on the net debt position and it was probably reaching a level that would have his bankers feeling a bit twitchy (especially after Debenhams went south). This helps keep that under control while not massively impacting the overall returns of the group.

'Of course I have a go on a Saturday night. What else am I going to do, just have a wank?'

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank is majority owned by the state, not by Khaled. That is some proper Infowars-grade theorising there.

NUFC buys and sells in instalments, there are numbers to that effect in the accounts. Maybe we took that approach once, but it doesn't seem to have been the case over the last few years. Never seen the problem with taking the approach to 'all-in' player costs. It seems totally sensible to me. The problems are that the manager isn't trusted to spend it and the club runs itself like a pound shop and doesn't fulfil its potential to enhance the total amount available.

Does a registration score goals ? Might want to read the post in context next time. And if you want me to be facetious, then yes they do. Otherwise you'd be fielding loads of ineligible players and would earn negative points over a season.

The value in the asset is the player's registration, not the employee themselves.

If it's activating a clause, then there is no decision for the club to make, so it just happens. Buyers should be aware any such clauses through legal due diligence so would have to factor the risk of players leaving into their price. It would be pretty standard and if anything it's even more critical where the bulk of your assets are concentrated in a small group of players. BZG have got a proper law firm onside so this sort of stuff wouldn't slip through (which is the same reason why 'Ashley didn't know about X' when he bought the club is total rubbish).

If a sale has been agreed, the club would likely be restricted from making any decisions on material asset sales (if there is a decision to be made) without the consent of the acquirer. The cash would remain in the target business or otherwise the price would be adjusted.

The charges are in favour of Barclays- so it may just be a case that they no longer need to provide any security to Barclays (although I thought the main charges over the club were satisfied some time ago so it seems odd the charge of IP/trademarks stayed in place). On it's own, it doesn't really mean anything. Also, the tweeter claims the assets are 'securitised' - bit of incorrect terminology there. They are provided as security for credit exposure undertaken by the bank, which is something quite different.

Good luck... and don't...oh, wait, you probably will.

Aye, I have only just realised Rafa has gone, totally passed me by because I was thinking about the takeover all day.

Not only that, it's just not sustainable to keep operating on crossed fingers and bargain hunting- we've seen it before, sooner or later your luck runs out and it's back to the Championship and cash injections required to keep the club afloat despite the parachute payments. A sale means a guaranteed return.

£350m is a big cow

How do you know this like? It’s being widely quoted in the press that this is the case. https://www.balls.ie/football/rafael-benitez-set-leave-newcastle-mike-ashley-refuses-budge-412765 Wages are not included in the transfer budget according to Chris Waugh. I'm probably in a minority here but to me it makes perfect sense to have a 'playing budget' which takes account of all the costs involved with signing a player. Maybe you can get a more experienced player for a low fee but have to shoulder some big wages- it makes no sense if you have loads of room on the transfer budget but no capacity for the extra wages. Ultimately, it's all pounds and pence. Rafa has made it clear it's not about how much he has to spend but more about the control he has over it- he doesn't want to have to have every decision micro-managed by people who know nothing about football. Managerial autonomy and our continued lack of investment in training facilities seem to be the biggest factors.

The most recent figure was that SD spent £12m in total on advertising and promotion for 2017, so I would say longer than Ashley has left on the planet. With SD supposedly now paying for the advertising (could of course be a total lie), will be interesting to see what appears under 'related party transactions' in the next set of accounts.

Twenty million a year? Get away man. Based off our other deals, £4-6m a year more realistic I’m sure we could get more if we were run otoperly of course, but thats probably fair going.

They might have recorded lines. Unless you can get them out for beer somewhere noisy you've no chance.

Yeah, you're not likely to get info like that in written form.

Because that's all through Sports Direct. While Ashley still owns 60% and is the driving force behind the business, it funds itself through its own cash generation and its own banking facilities. Ashley made his cash when he floated SD (I think he originally sold down to 50%-ish) but it's years since SD paid a dividend to shareholders nor has it been out raising new funds from them. So all of these acquisitions have been funded from operations and incremental debt. SD is a very cash-generative business and MA has pushed the business to use these funds on acquisitions rather than on paying a dividend to shareholders, clearly some of those proceeds have gone up in smoke in the interim. So if SD performs poorly, the value of MA's shares will fall, but this is all on paper- he's not actually incurring a cash loss. So it's not like he's lost cash on Debenhams and needs to recoup it somewhere else (unless he's living off a margin loan secured on his SD shares- unlikely but stranger things have happened). Not really, it's just maths. Debt jumped when he pumped in extra cash on the back of the relegations. He's taken two dividends out since- one after the Carroll sale and one in the last 12 months. Realistically, he can't keep the club running like it is without risking relegation and with it the TV money which dwarfs all other revenue streams and then he's back to putting cash back in again. It really is the perfect time to sell.