I'm sorry but that is possibly the worst post I think you have ever posted on here.
Of course he was expecting payback for his loan, we all knew that from day one that if he was a sensible businessman, the money was only going to be given in an assumption that the £100m was going to be given back to him via an increased valuation of the club.
And quaysides OP makes it clear that he has underwritten a £20m loss in the past year, hence giving that £20m a year he promised.
With that in mind, it is clear that it is unrealistic to expect anyone coming in to do much difference unless they are genuine multi-billionaires who want some personal glory.
All Ashley's faults must therefore by with regards to his handling of management affairs, as opposed lack of investment.
Sorry mate, but how many times have we heard people praise ashley for putting his hand in his pocket to clear our debts? a thousand times? ten thousand times? this is just a big YOURE WRONG to all those ashley arse lickers. funny how great financial brains like LLLO missed that one, yet i suggested it over a year ago.
clearing debt can be great if the club is up for sale as it means the new owners dont have to address that and inherit a club with a good balance sheet. this doesnt apply in our case as ashley wants this money paid to him. it can be good for a second reason - avoiding interest and loan repayments means money can be put back into the club for the manager to spend - once again, this doesnt apply to us. for us fans, you know, people who watch football being played on a football pitch, it can be good if having a reduced debt consequently improves our on field performance. i dont need to tell you that this has not happened.
the £20m loss is primarily player amortisation, a paper loss. if owen moves into the last year of his contract the club would lose, say, £4m from the value of a year of his tenure at the club, something restricted to the balance sheets rather than cash flowing out of the club. in fact, £17.8m of that £20m is player amortisation. as with previous accounts which saw us make something like a £30m loss, this was reduced to £300,000 once amortisation and trading was taken out of the equation. the club is making a small loss, nothing substantial, which is no suprise considering how poorly the club has been ran on the field in shepherd's final years and the entirety of ashley's reign. the way to improve this is to invest in the managerial & playing staff. any business that wants to move forward has to go into debt, you have to make expenditures in the short-term to reap the rewards in the medium to long term. if ashley is not prepared to do this he should bugger off. trying to run a premiership club on a shoestring is counter-productive - you end up in situations like the one we are in currently, and it could get worse. those who like to defend ashley any chance they get need to wake up and realise this.
This bolded bit you seem to be spouting every time this issue comes up is completely wrong.
For starters, when Ashley purchased the club, the club cost him £200-230m in real terms, in other words, £130m price plus the agreement to take on the debts. Its very laughable that clearing off the debts will make us more appealing, as the paid off debts just become part of the club's valuation. In fact, (now this tidbit is pure speculation) but a Tom Hicks figure would probably see the £130m + debts more appealing if it was possible to refinance these debts.
It was a no brainer, when losing huge amounts of interest, that if you have the capital, you pay off the debt and just stick the £100m onto the valuation. It is laughable for you to expect Ashley to keep the debt, and spend an eighth of his £800m wealth on players instead. You'd need an Ambramovich to fulfil your unrealistic expectations.
