madras

am i right in assuming that as of yet, apart from the 100mill window price, nothing has been mentioned about the "loan". so it is as likely to have been written off as needing paid as a condition of sale. we really haven't a clue on this have we ?

source ? Pompey 20m Villa 42m i meant the terms of repaying the loan etc.

and to use the old adage, in our case the light at the end of the tunnel will probably be an oncoming train.

Well it was more than 70m and if you include the wage bill, installments made to other clubs on players purchased more than we had. I could cut the wage bill to 15m in the time it takes to make 5 phone calls. come on then You can't afford me. and you can't just get rid of players as easy as you think.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted. As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot. Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!! Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league. you mean he never wanted to do an abaramovich (even on a smaller scale) and bankroll the club ? Why buy a football club if you're not going to grow the business? huge difference between growing a business and bankrolling something.......do you think abramovich or al fayed will get their money back ?

Well it was more than 70m and if you include the wage bill, installments made to other clubs on players purchased more than we had. I could cut the wage bill to 15m in the time it takes to make 5 phone calls. come on then

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted. As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot. Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!! Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league. you mean he never wanted to do an abaramovich (even on a smaller scale) and bankroll the club ?

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. 99% of PL clubs struggle financially. and if they keep struggling and their debts are managed the way ours were, the same thing will happen to them.

well put an official transfer request in instead of trying to skirt round the rules to squeeze every last piece of cash out the club he's supposed to feel so much for. I think he would be happy to stay if things were sorted out. Why put in an official transfer request if he hopes things may eventually be sorted? well why come out and say "i have to leave" they mean the same thing but one nets him more cash than the other. Because if things don't get sorted, then of course he will have to leave. We are a total mess and no player with any self respect would hang around if things carry on the way they are. I think people are looking far to much into this official transfer request thing. To me its pretty obvious the players are trying to put pressure on the c***s in charge to appoint a manager now and start running like a normal football club. then say "get it sorted or we'll all want out" as opposed to "i have to leave"

source ?

well put an official transfer request in instead of trying to skirt round the rules to squeeze every last piece of cash out the club he's supposed to feel so much for. I think he would be happy to stay if things were sorted out. Why put in an official transfer request if he hopes things may eventually be sorted? well why come out and say "i have to leave" they mean the same thing but one nets him more cash than the other.

well put an official transfer request in instead of trying to skirt round the rules to squeeze every last piece of cash out the club he's supposed to feel so much for. For all we know declaring his interest to leave publicly has voided his loyalty bonus claim? Unless anyone knows this not to be the case perhaps? it hasn't happened in the past with other players.

i honestly think putting the club up then was a publicity exercise and he deliberatly put a ridiculous price so either, he sells at a stupid price or he ends up keeping it which he wanted. as has been said a few times on here i think his plan was to stop up with minimum investment till he could get shot of the high wage earners then invest through the clubs earnings and sustainable debt. Nah, that theory doesn't hold water at all. He'd have got a full time manager in (until the end of the season at least) from the start. The only reason we ended up with Kinnear is because noone else would take the job for only a month. If he never intended to sell he wouldn't have limited himself like that, nor would he have abandoned his DoF structure. i think he'd have abandoned the DoF to keep shearer if we'd stopped up. the kinnear point could be right though.

well put an official transfer request in instead of trying to skirt round the rules to squeeze every last piece of cash out the club he's supposed to feel so much for.

interesting that harper in the sun piece says the club has been "gradually imploding for five or six years", when those first few of years were under fred who if rumours are to be believed could be his new boss in a while.

i honestly think putting the club up then was a publicity exercise and he deliberatly put a ridiculous price so either, he sells at a stupid price or he ends up keeping it which he wanted. as has been said a few times on here i think his plan was to stop up with minimum investment till he could get shot of the high wage earners then invest through the clubs earnings and sustainable debt.

Why do you think Given was as pissed off with the regime when he upped sticks? It's because they told him if wants to leave he has to hand in a transfer request. He did the same 'I want out' s*** through his solicitor and maybe one thing Ashley got right was making him hand in a request. These c***s want out but don't want to lose anything by putting in a request. Spineless bastards. They therefore wouldn't put in a transfer request until a deal is virtually done. then the club shouldn't allow them to talk to anyone or accept a bid which isn't ridiculously overpriced until the player hands in the request.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went.

i honestly don't think i would if i'd made millions out of a club i claimed to love. if i thought i'd be struggling financially then fair enough but that isn't the case.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings.

pretty sure it doesn't work that way. it needs to be an official written request given to the club. (thats why given handed his in as late as possiblt before the window shut, even though he' agitated in the press for a move he still had to hand in an official one)

backing up crumpys point. i take it habib has put in an official transfer request. if not stamp greedy twat across all of his pics. it seems strange for a club in our financial situation that there hasn't been a firesale, i can only assume this is because ashley doesn't want to be disposing of assets while the club is up for sale (any alteration in the situation of the assets will affect the price). i'd also like to point out that after a very good first season he was distinctly ordinary last season as often happens to players reaching the end of their careers, however he would be perfect for the position we are in.

isn't that a bit naive. for example he just turns round and says there were no suitable bids because he's heard others are interested.

am i the only one thinking that the more people come out in public and say they are interested the longer it'll take as ashley will hold on to see if a better bid comes in ?

to be fair the press licked our arses when we were doing well as the entertainers etc.