Matt

Right wing iirc.

Marwood played a few games at Blyth last season and looked very lightweight. Conference National defenders will eat him for breakfast.

The only reason I can think of as to why it was not used as collateral before was that there was simply no call for it. The old board may have been reckless in some regards but they were not likely to fund a transfer spree and wages secured on the stadium (nor would a bank be keen to lend for that purpose given how much other external debt we had at the time). That would have been madness. With the stadium expansion secured on cashflows, there was no need to throw the stadium into the ring- plus it left that major asset unemcumbered should the shit really hit the fan.

Not numbers wise, it's just that Barclays wanted an 'everything plus the kitchen sink' guarantee in return for keeping the overdraft levels at what they were. According to the wonderful press statement, that is now fully-utilised at £20m.

Because investors were happy with that arrangement- season ticket revenue was very solid. Also the loan wasn't to a single bank but to various funds, who are probably less demanding in terms of hard collateral (at least back then). It's a lot harder to get cashflow-backed security now unless you are a large company with a full structured financing in place. Really this news had no net debt impact- simply that incoming transfer money must be used to pay down the overdraft which seems fairly standard to me. However it will restrict our ability to spend anything in the transfer window. It's looking clear that Ashley's no 1 priority is to clear the overdraft.

Erm, firstly, fuck you. And the reason that 'they couldn't talk to the decision maker' is that these things are agreed by internal committee(s). The guys who are talking to the client will have to make their recommendation to the commitee for approval, and arranging one is even harder when half the world has taken the week off for half term. You can't just talk to the guy who makes the calls, there isn't one such person. That's just not how things work. What has probably happened today is an exec has stepped in and offered some degree of comfort that HBOS will come good on what they have thrashed out, but you can't just circumvent the process. FSA regs.

The protest is over terms in the contract of the sale of the ground, not the club itself as the company which owned the ground was also placed into administration with HBOS as the main creditor of that company. I just think there's a lot more to this than is currently in the public domain.

MASH holds his shares in both NUFC and Sports Direct. Offset-tastic.

Nufcblog made a good attempt of making the statement even less obvious, sadly it looks like they aren't accepting comments pointing the errors of their ways! I'm still staggered by how many people think this statement was a good idea. It reminds me of the old phrase "You can fool some of the people some of the time, and usually that's enough".

No we're not. Does every other club just throw money around for the fun of it? No, they negotiate well by...erm..... negotiating well. This statement makes us look foolish and if anything puts us in an even weaker position. We can always just say 'no thanks' when agents approach us with a player, but clearly those at the top don't trust those in the middle (ie Hughton) to do as they are told. Regardless of the fact that 'capitalising' has nothing to do with paying cash up front, what are we going to pay up front with? We have negative cash!

While the idea of paying up front but receiving in instalments flies in the face of everyday 'cash is king' business logic, we may have done it for the reason that Ashley was in a strong personal cash position. Therefore he was more than happy to receive a higher fee in return for providing a bit of "interest-free credit" (which of course is never interest-free). The flipside is that when buying players we negotiate a discount for paying up front. As long as that discount/premium is a better return than what he could otherwise have been doing with his cash, then it makes sense. Now Ashley is seemingly in clawback mode, that policy would not seem to make any sense at all.

That definition is wayward. Capital expenditure (outlay if you will) is not about cash timing- it doesn't matter when you actually pay- it's when you acquire the asset (when we get the economic benefit ie can he train / play for us). So it doesn't matter if we pay in one go- you still capitalise all of the costs. Equally, a free transfer or loan would have such costs attached. It's not cash paid over time- it is expensed over time (as amortisation). Nor is it a liability- the player is the asset and the liability would be the amount in fees we are yet to pay. In fact the only way we can avoid capitalising anything is to buy players on 9-month contracts and letting them leave on a free, meaning all costs incurred would be expensed by the time the accounts were compiled. In a nutshell, the statement in this regard is nonsensical and clearly written by someone who hasn't so much as passed a basic bookkeeping course. One good suggestion earlier is that Ashley himself won't stump up which is one reasonable view if you bear in mind how badly the rest of it was written.

Whitley Bay, like a few Northern League clubs, are a cut above the rest of the opposition as the best teams in that league never take promotion, which would result in participaiton in the FA Trophy. There's no reason why they couldn't make it a hat-trick.

And because every good plan begins with '1. Widely publish the plan on a globally-accessible medium'. Classic Sun Tzu. Name me one benefit of stating that we will not spend anything on players this summer. If they can find another 30,000 people who are convinced this easily then Ashley has a cash cow for life. THEY CLUB HAS NOT SAID IT WON'T SPEND MONEY ON PLAYERS! "There is no plan for new capital outlay on players." Yes they have. Maybe they didn't mean it, but that's what they have said. Spending on fees is capital expenditure. They don't say anything about a net outlay- they just say 'outlay'. If it's a new player, it's a new capital outlay. If they are talking in obtuse terms about the actual capital of the club, they need to proof-read their statements more carefully. In reality, the truth could be any outcome- past statements have given no indication to the truth.

And because every good plan begins with '1. Widely publish the plan on a globally-accessible medium'. Classic Sun Tzu. Name me one benefit of stating that we will not spend anything on players this summer. If they can find another 30,000 people who are convinced this easily then Ashley has a cash cow for life.

This could be Ashley putting the club up for sale again, trying to get interested parties to show their hands while fans are kept at a safe distance close season.

You can't really avoid 'capital outlay' unless you do not pay a penny in transfer fees, signing-on fees or agent's fees. So I suspect that they've worded this rather crucial section rather badly. Does sound like Mike is now in debt repayment mode. He must be off his head to think the fans are just going to let him bail-out his own fucked investment.

I'm no accountant!

Yeah he could use interest charges to offset an operating profit for tax purposes (on the off chance we ever generate one), but it's a side issue. The club won't be sold with on-demand loans outstanding to Ashley unless the purchaser is the world's biggest numpty.

Didn't the mackems write off all their debt? http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Ellis-Short-delivers-50million-boost-to-Black-Cats-article346037.html much the same as us. we're both ok providing the bloke at the top will keep taking the losses. I don't think so. Like at Chelsea and Man City they've flipped the debt into equity so there are no loans outstanding. When you own the company 100%, it's all as good as equity- each have their own advantages and disadvantages but ultimately Ashley has put his own capital at risk in a business he controls. Chelsea were wary of the UEFA Licensing regs, not sure what Short's motivation is. And the quote in the article about the money 'being there forever and cannot be withdrawn' is just a massive lie.

Surely a P45 is in the offing.

We will definitely sell any player if a large offer comes in. We are clearly still looking to reduce the number of big earners- not just to reduce cash out of the door but to prevent having a few select high earners in the dressing room. If Taylor doesn't sign a contract, he will be almost certainly sold, Colo's wages are such an issue we'd part for a few million. Selling Enrique would be very risky given his popularity but we may be able to get him on a lower basic + good bonuses on a longer-term contract. I suspect we will also offer reduced wage contracts to Smith and Barton, purely for the fact it defers the cash out into future years. Smith could be the best-paid reserve player since Winston Bogarde.

Without both Routledge and Lovenkrands, we certainly lacked pace, with Best repeatedly caught by Watford defenders. Pitch was soggy from the off and got worse, Gutierrez was trying to play fancy football and finding the ball bobbling all over the place. In the centre of the park it was an all-out melee of brutal football, although the referee was still too ready to dish out yellows. Guthrie again looked out of place on the right hand side and we were exposed down that channel a few times in the first half. Although not as good a player overall, I do wonder if Ryan Taylor would be a better fit in the absence of Routledge. My lowly position in the stand made it hard to get a proper view of the gameplay, but we were massively helped by Watford's poor forward play with a string of sloppy offsides, especially in the first half. Really didn't majorly threaten until the last 20 minutes where I thought we got stuck in our own 18-yard box and did not look comfortable with the oncoming aerial bombardment as they went direct- maybe would have worked from the off? Overall an awful game on a wet pitch with Gutierrez our only real creative outlet, we have to be pleased with 3 points. GG clearly hasn't seen any of our away games this season, that was pretty much par for the course.

Don't be daft. Are you suggesting that Ashley will try to recover the money he lent to a company he wholly owns by appointing an independent specialist to run it? Remember you get LESS money back in administration through a CVA, you just get your money at long last. As long as Ashley is both owner and creditor administration is simply not going to happen, it would be totally nonsensical.

It is if you have to pay it now. That would be enough to finish off most teams.