Zero

How about take a look at my original post before posting sth like this?

Too long to quote. The fat cunt won't look in this way. Say the gamble paid off, the 60M won't go to his pocket as he publicly stated that this is Rafas. However if the gamble failed Rafa won't be here and he has to bear the consequence. Why would he do the gamble then?

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way). Give me examples that a normal club in EPL would have an income item called "owners donation". He could have signed a sponsorship deal with sports direct and funded us that way. You know, pay for the advertising space. Yea, by market price, additional 4m per year? unless it is the difference between relegation or not, would this help to give us an additional Batshuayi? Have you got evidence to back up your £4m a year figure? Preferable using a similar sized club, and a similar amount of sponsorship granted (including the team going to do meet and greets at Sports Direct and also the huge roof advertising)? May not be directly comparable, but the quick source I use is Everton 31 May 2016 annual account which club size is larger than us (sadly). Total revenue consist of Broadcasting 82.5M Gate receipts 17.6M Advertising and Sponsorship 9.3M Other commercial revenue 12.1M Just very quick math, I assume the max sponsorship in market for our size to be 10M per year. Our wonga deal is 24M for 5 years so I assume it to be 5M. So assuming 1M for other advertising we get, the max loss in revenue is 4M. Very rough calculation though.

As far as I know, kit sponsorship should be the most expensive. I really doubt our club sponsorship could be more than what we got from northern rock wonga 888 etc.

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way). Give me examples that a normal club in EPL would have an income item called "owners donation". He could have signed a sponsorship deal with sports direct and funded us that way. You know, pay for the advertising space. Yea, by market price, additional 4m per year? unless it is the difference between relegation or not, would this help to give us an additional Batshuayi? Some owners pay above market price for club sponsorships. Like you know, a clever accounting trick to inject funds to the club. Yea, or they can write off debt for free, like Man city. And this is sugar daddy owner which I suggested 1. Ashley will never be and 2. Lot of EPL clubs dont have.

I said I am very puzzled that people are suggesting Ashley to in fact act like a sugar daddy this summer which is unrealistic, and this is partly due to an over estimation of our club spending power which the annual account has showed, even if taken into account those "manipulation" Ashley did. Got it?

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way). Give me examples that a normal club in EPL would have an income item called "owners donation". He could have signed a sponsorship deal with sports direct and funded us that way. You know, pay for the advertising space. Yea, by market price, additional 4m per year? unless it is the difference between relegation or not, would this help to give us an additional Batshuayi?

Nah, enough, I just don't understand what's the point of arguing like I am defending the fat cunt. I am just saying look at the account and be realistic, unless there is a sugar daddy owner, what we can spend this summer is more or less around 20-30M unless Ashley put his own money in or spend future income which doesn't make sense in Ashley perspective. The so called "spending 70m without additional funding from Ashley" does not exist from day one accounting to annual accounts, that's it. Yes it is due to relegation cost, yes it is due to his past stubbornness, yes if he is gutsy enough he can gamble by using future revenue (which does him absolutely no good). But I am just saying it is unrealistic as it simply won't happen. Okay?

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way). Give me examples that a normal club in EPL would have an income item called "owners donation".

How about just go to have a read on our annual account? I know ur hatred against the fat c*** but unless he bribed the accountant, the account is showing something else. He's outsourced as much as possible so that the club doesn't make anywhere near as much money in the accounts as it should - a lot of profit is diverted elsewhere, i.e. through Sports Direct. I know thats probably ly a bit hard for you to understand like. Yea talking about commercial income lost, how much did we lost per year? Any concrete examples? What's the difference between us and say, Watford or Stoke?

It is meaningless in accrual accounting sense. Not sure what your point is here - we have a guaranteed income that is due at various stages over the season. It makes perfect sense to borrow against guaranteed income streams. The income is unearned. Guaranteed future income in accrual accounting sense is not in the book yet. You are basically spending before receiving in accrual accounting sense. Even if Ashley showing "ambition", how about next year? Cut back spending or continue to spend the next year revenue? On top of that, I assume it's 3% interest cost per annum, so it's close to 3m interest cost. Why are 19 other clubs spending that way. Disregarding the sugar daddy club, lots of EPL clubs are actually doing a breakeven summer, and that's exactly the result of spending before receiving. They knew the income would jump last summer and so they spent the money a year earlier, and now they are taking it back by no more net spending this summer. However to those that failed the gamble and relegated, they would take a huge hit and that's exactly what we did during McClarens nightmare. I am not defending Ashley for not taking the gamble / tricked Rafa, just that I am saying it is unrealistic to ask him to do the gamble when he has failed once and I can't see the benefit for him to do it. As I said before, the money saved can act as the reserve for relegation cost and that's the best defence to him against Rafas ultimatum.

Okay Dave, try to get it. To be precise, in terms of "spending power", it is related to "net profit", not cash. You can take a look at our accounts bottom line, the net profit. That's roughly the real saving. of course amortization played a part but roughly you can calculate our real spending power by this way (just for example): throughout 5 years we spend 10m net, and our profit is 2m per year, then our real spending power is 12m per year. Very rough one, but wont varied much. On the other hand, cash is related to "the payment". If we don't have enough cash in our bank, we need other means to finance it, either from players sales, bank loan or owner loan. This is not related to spending power, it's purely about the requirement for making a transfer to happen. Unless the two teams agreed to defer the payment, if a club has no cash on hand, it cannot buy any players. So in our case, what Ashley means for no more injection is 1. No more loss business (I.e break even) and 2. No more personal cash in case the club has no cash to pay for the transfer. It's complicated. Try to understand it.

It is meaningless in accrual accounting sense. Not sure what your point is here - we have a guaranteed income that is due at various stages over the season. It makes perfect sense to borrow against guaranteed income streams. The income is unearned. Guaranteed future income in accrual accounting sense is not in the book yet. You are basically spending before receiving in accrual accounting sense. Even if Ashley showing "ambition", how about next year? Cut back spending or continue to spend the next year revenue? On top of that, I assume it's 3% interest cost per annum, so it's close to 3m interest cost.

A. charney quoted in annual account that the loss of central distributed revenue after relegation is 30m. I believe the so called central distributed revenue includes prize money, tv broadcast revenue and parachute payment. Bit odd if it's not the case. B. We just receive it once as we promoted back immediately. No more 40m this summer. I don't wish to appear pedantic, however ,90 million more than offsets 40 million like That's future revenue which is unearned in accounting sense, I guarantee you won't see this 90m in next account, if you mean the EPL TV broadcast rights income. Whether this amount is spendable is judgemental - but the cash has not yet received so if the club has to spend it NOW it has to be FINANCED by Ashley own money. Practically speaking, Ashley has to sell his shares to generate 90M cash and provide to Rafa, interest free, and he can only get it back 1 year later. It is complicated, probably, to those who don't know accounting and financing.

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account

How about just go to have a read on our annual account? I know ur hatred against the fat cunt but unless he bribed the accountant, the account is showing something else.

It is meaningless in accrual accounting sense.

A. charney quoted in annual account that the loss of central distributed revenue after relegation is 30m. I believe the so called central distributed revenue includes prize money, tv broadcast revenue and parachute payment. Bit odd if it's not the case. B. We just receive it once as we promoted back immediately. No more 40m this summer.

Then tell me where's the money.

What's left in the club following relegation and sales proceeds has been spent, if you have followed the annual account. The acquisition last summer was funded by the sales of Wijnaldum and Sissoko, and then we took a -30m loss in income due to relegation. Yea we won the Championship but the prize money and the broadcast money is very little. The net spending is 20m this summer so far which makes sense for any club promoted to EPL WITHOUT additional funding from owner. People keep on saying our net spend on transfer is ridiculously low, and Ashley is the cunt. Whilst I don't disagree he is a cunt, I also can't see our club making ridiculous profit as well. It is just close to break even for the past 6 years. So tell me where's the additional money we need? Ashley own pocket, more loans to the club, interest free.

So what are you asking Ashley to do now? give a free check book to Rafa? Sell the club for nothing to a sugar daddy? I am not defending the fat c*** but sometimes your "requirement" are just unrealistic. Basically you are asking Ashley to give out his own money for Rafa to play and for your entertainment. And within the whole process he gets nothing but potential huge loss if we relegate. Tell me why would he do so? Ambition? Ambition for what? Oh yeah I am the owner of a top 6 finish club, and the cost is 100m or even more? What's the point? I am very very puzzled. You can blame Ashley for lots of poor decisions but to blame him for not being a sugar daddy and give out money like donation is ridiculous. He DID give the money within the club to Rafa to spend, as I stated before, and it is the future income that has not been received that is in question. So all additional money would come from Ashley pocket, and why would he do so? You keep on saying he should give out in order to be ambitious or to try, but what's the benefit for Ashley? Some suggest he can take it back later and it's just a kind of investment - ok I can't imagine what's the reaction here if his loan to the club is reduced later. FYI his loan to the club, which is interest free, just keep on increasing since the takeover. Be realistic, please.

I think everyone knows Rafa is not the one to blame, it's Ashley. But let's be realistic, no way Ashley would bow down to Rafas demand to give out his own money, just no. However, I do expect Rafa to do a better job, even if it means little sacrifice on his own pride or belief. He has the tactical ability to bring out the best of our players, and that should be more than enough to survive, rather than trying to fit the players who aren't up to standard into his own system. The TV money, which we believed that Ashley has tricked him, will still be here after this season if we survived, and Rafa can start to spend by then. Rafa can turn things around if he is willing to fight one more year, rather than starting the PR war and playing a suicidal squad just to "make a statement". He has every right to do it, I don't blame him, just that I am disappointed by the latest development because I did see there is possibility that both can work together, but obviously the chance has gone, and it may not come again. Rafa has choice, to use his ability and patience to solve the problem, rather than to start war that may end up everyone's the loser. Utterly disappointed, not only to Ashley but also to Rafa. As a fan, I really don't like being sacrificed for the war between the manager and the owner. I really don't, even if Rafa has every right to do it.

Talent is there, but obviously raw.

De Jong wages is very high, that's why the fee so cheap.

You can say it's the case. The question is just whether you trust him that this is ultimately good for us in long term.