Matt

That assumes he talked to his lawyers before committing to a deal. Everything about the deal suggests it was a complete impulse from someone who had recently found himself on the right end of about £800m. It might be that the club use the 'hidden debt' line as a bit of deliberate misinformation, but I think in this case we really were purchased without so much as a glance at the financials.

Given some of the characters involved with Rangers over the last couple of years, there will be plenty of unexpected surprises awaiting whoever owns the club. Certainly no more than all these debts we had which were in fact in plain sight for anyone to see.

Well the local journo's have zero hope for the last part. As for the rest everything you need is in the club accounts. It would give Lee Ryder a chance to show he's a bit better with numbers than he is with words.

Shunning games won't have a real impact, but as a now ex-ST holder I completely agree with it on an individual basis. Problem is that there are plenty of people who are of the view 'you have to support the lads' who will go regardless. Especially if we are scraping wins at home in the process. Matchday revenues have become a relatively small part of the club's overall revenue, we could probably operate a shoestring budget (in theory at least) without a soul coming through the door. Ashley has used NUFC as a vehicle for Sports Direct and will continue to do so until his association with the club has a detrimental impact on his main bsuiness.

Brilliant.

I see the Journal are applying Pardew's big-game mindset to Villa with their headline there. Phew, didn't get bummed this year.

Ashley bought NUFC through a series of companies. The one which bought NUFC was called St James Holdings Ltd (and may well still be). SJHL is in turn owned by MASH Holdings, which also owns his shares in Sports Direct. So to buy the club he lent the money to SJHL which then used it to pay the former shareholders. However subsequent to that Ashley lent more money to SJHL, which then lent that to NUFC to repay various debt and to improve the club's perilous cash position (and did so again when we were relegated). So the amount showing as a debt to NUFC does not relate to the purchase price, whereas at SJHL the debt shown reflects both purchase price and subsequent cash injections. As for why do it as (virtually) all debt, this is simply to give more flexibility around tax as the interest is tax-deductible.

Mata, Essien and Ba as unused subs. Squad looking a bit thick.

Am I missing something- why wouldn't they have a forum? They're not a pub side.

That was an absolute peach.

Arse. Lumping fail.

That is mental, I'm having some of that.

I can't fathom how it is good for the future. That implies that because some of the loan to Ashley is repaid today, it need not be repaid in the future. But that's an illusion. If the club can convince enough of the fanbase that this 'debt' is somehow the duty of the club (and with it the goodwill of the supporters) to repay Ashley as an individual then it will be a great sleight of hand. If 'the club' - the players and staff and buildings and everything that makes the business run is worth £100m, and Ashley is owed £150m, then Ashley's shares are worth -£50m. £150m+(-£50m)=£100m, that would be the total cash Ashley would bank from a sale at fair price today. However if the 'loan' is repaid over time by controlling cash spend and getting the pickup on TV money, then the loan could be paid down to say £50m. The club can still be valued at £100m, so the equity is worth £50m. £50m+£50m=£100m, the same as before. The crucial difference being that £100m has been taken out already- meaning that Ashley recoups a total of £200m rather than the £100m he might get today. That is why we should not conisder this loan as 'debt' nor should we consider it a duty or a good thing should the club opt to repay this rather than use funds on the football side. Instead we should consider the loan as equity and the debt repayments as dividends- as the impact on the ability of the club to perform on the pitch (which is what we really care about) is the same.

Whether you have paid off debts or not is largely irrelevant in valuing thr company. You value the business operations- that is what you are buying. To get to the value of the equity in the business you take the business valuation (usually a multiple of earnings) then subtract long-term debt (ie not day-to-day working capital) and add back cash. There was a great article on this featuring David Wilkinson of Deloitte, who is a very nice man and clearly knows his stuff: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/how-much-would-cost-buy-4803989

Which other clubs are borrowing from banks to fund transfers? The vast majority of funds into clubs appears to be coming from owners pockets. If I were a credit officer at a bank and was asked to write a loan to a football club to fund transfers, the request would be almost surely get shredded. I can barely imagine a worse use of funds.

Can't he now buy out his contract with Lyon? He's 4 years in and he's 27.

You make that sound like some kind of great thing.

That stuff about him hiring the best at SD is bollocks- the main men there are the guys who worked with him when he started out. I think the FD is his original accountant. This sort of carry on is par for the course.

I thought the Arena was getting flattened?

They're effectively going down every year with the price freezes in place and we're generally full because we have a payment structure that absolutely maximises the latent optimism of even the most cynical football fan and keeps them coming through regardless of the quality of fare.

But doesn't Ashley also own the holding company? So in essence he owes himself that amount? I'm confused. Bottom line. If Ashley leaves then he can ask for that money back which is putting off potential suitors? Correct? Yes. What does the club owe him I forget 250 million or something, so he's looking for the value of the club plus what hes owed, probably putting the price at 350-400 million, which is obviously no where near what we are worth. If some Billionaire wants to buy a club, he buy a shit one for 50 million quid invest 300 million and they'll be challenging for the title or at least champions league. Buy us have to invest another 200 million to get us challenging for the league. It doesn't work like that. Al Fayed changing his loans to equity might have helped with FFP but it has no bearning on the ability to sell the club. And nor would any prospective purchaser consider the shareholder loans that Ashley has out to the club (at the holding company this loan is much bigger as he effectively lent his own company the funds to buy out the previous shareholders). If you were buying the club tomorrow you value it based on the business alone and not on any debt or excess cash in the business. Once those proceeds have satisfied any external debt that must be repaid, then Ashley can do what he likes, his debt and equity interest in the club would be extinguished. The real issue is that he has put such an amount of money into the club that it is difficult to see him getting it back with the club in the state it's in. It's his desire not to be seen to be taking a hit rather than our balance sheet which is the real obstacle.

I love how every link in the Journal or Chronicle seems to go 'Newcastle are keen on X, but as their club aren't prepared to give him away for tuppence, this may mean there is no deal'.

He thinks Alan Pardew is still the manager, so I guess it's possible.

Villa's treatment of Bent is an odd one, unless he really has done something utterly heinous. Are they hoping that by effectively giving up any hope of their original asking price and putting him in with the youth team, he won't go about asking for a settlement on his contract? I can't see why any club would go in with a fee as a starting offer. Surely the arrangement with Villa depends on Bent taking a pay cut and how much he would want up fron in order to agree to that.

The first of which usually saw him in the book.