Colos Short and Curlies

Fighting a losing battle I'm afraid. I tried and bowed out a few das ago

Now that would be awesome.

To be seen tbh. Ashley's history in retail would also suggest he is of the mentality to stick 2 fingers up to the established route to the top of football and do it his own way, trying to prove he is the number one at something else

For the purposes of selling the club, ignore it. Either way it's Ashley getting money for selling the club- but to be clear there is no way the debt would remain on the books post sale- even if the sale price is for less than the book value of the debt. Not strictly true. The loan could reamain as a way of deferring the payment for the club if MA was desperate to sell and it was the best way to structure a deal.

Yeah if he wanted to recoup his loan it would be: Value of loan + value of club = sales price

For capital repayment yes, but these types of loans are rarely repaid and it's all about the interest (usually charged at someo eye-watering amount). If he waives outright the interest payable for the year, then this will improve the P&L as it reduced interest costs. In turn this increases the corporation tax for the period (although past losses would likely wipe this out anyway). What Ashley could do is choose to roll the interest into the capital PIK-style, that way he can elect to pay interest in cash or 'waive' that payment- but as the payment increases the size of the liability, this is still a deduction for corporation tax purposes. Interest free isn't it?

Its how much he could include as a balance owed to himself. He disn't have to of course, it's his personal money he has put in, so if he wanted to sell for 50p and personally lose that money forever he could do. He could also of course sell the club but not the debt, and have a balance owed to him over a period of time. Whatever he does will have a bearing on the total value (sales price) of the club when he sells it though

which strictly speaking he hasn't as long as the club owe him money (discounting the original purchase of course) However he will not be "paying for his own mistakes" as some are eager to claim. This extract from the 2010 accounts suggest he intended to repay some of his loan last year and this: Tehnically 'after more than one year' doesn't mean in year 2 - it could mean year 3/5/10 or indefinitely. Also, with not being privy to the underlying records I can't say for sure, but the structure of this debt (i.e. payable in 1 year etc) could be linked to something else in the accounts and it may be 'hot air' - i.e. it will be restructured this year and the acounts will show that the amount repayble was not taken up by MA. We'll know by the next accounts 1) In another section, the amount due between one and two years is £16.5m, so I put 2 & 2 together. 2) Of course, which is why I didn't say he HAS repaid some of his loan, only that it looks like he intended to. Personally I doubt the £35m for Carroll did anything to change his mind. Yeah, the only thing the Carroll money sill do from an accountants mind is to use up some tax losses that are approaching their end date. Shouldn't have an impact that anyone here would be intereste in

which strictly speaking he hasn't as long as the club owe him money (discounting the original purchase of course) However he will not be "paying for his own mistakes" as some are eager to claim. This extract from the 2010 accounts suggest he intended to repay some of his loan last year and this: Tehnically 'after more than one year' doesn't mean in year 2 - it could mean year 3/5/10 or indefinitely. Also, with not being privy to the underlying records I can't say for sure, but the structure of this debt (i.e. payable in 1 year etc) could be linked to something else in the accounts and it may be 'hot air' - i.e. it will be restructured this year and the acounts will show that the amount repayble was not taken up by MA. We'll know by the next accounts

which strictly speaking he hasn't as long as the club owe him money (discounting the original purchase of course)

Look at it like a credit card. If for years you were spending more than you earned your balance on your card goes up and up. Just because you get a windfall doesn't mean you can ignore the balance. It needs to be repaid. MA has put a hell of a lot of money into the club, some from his own stupidity and some from the fact that the finances were on their arse when he came in. Personally I think that he should shoulder the loss from relegation, but if some of the windfall has repaid some of the loan then so be it. Every loan has to be repaid at some point, you just have to hope that it gets recylced with fresh finance when the need arises. Oh, we'd also have a tax bill to pay this year at some point - add a couple of million on to the outgoings

Me. If that was the 'policy' we would have signed Reo Coker rather than Cabaye. We'll be looking at a young player from the UK or abroad, not a past it player on inflated wages (for their ability) Who is talking about 'policy'? Either will be a cheap alternative, nothing more. As for NRC over Cabaye, we got Cabaye on a great deal and even a poor time here will have little difficulty selling him whereas NRC is f***ing s**** and will be another Smith-like deadweight. Exactly, which is why they would go for a similar exampe for a left back and not one of Shorey etc You made the stupid NRC/Cabaye link not the club, they signed a French Int for a great deal early doors because it was a fantastic deal nowt else. No reason to say they wont go for a cheap option like Shorey tbh No the point is, if all MA is interested in is briniging in players as cheaply a possible we would have gone down the NRC route, the fact(?) is that the club have looked to exploit contracts to bring in younger players, which is what I think they will do with a left back (if one is bought and not 'promoted')

Me. If that was the 'policy' we would have signed Reo Coker rather than Cabaye. We'll be looking at a young player from the UK or abroad, not a past it player on inflated wages (for their ability) Who is talking about 'policy'? Either will be a cheap alternative, nothing more. As for NRC over Cabaye, we got Cabaye on a great deal and even a poor time here will have little difficulty selling him whereas NRC is fucking shite and will be another Smith-like deadweight. Exactly, which is why they would go for a similar exampe for a left back and not one of Shorey etc

12m for Milner. Great business sense. 14m lost on Milner (to be worth 26m) + 30m lost from relegation + at least 10m lost from crowds, sponsorship and merchandising = Clueless football business sense. It's all just a little bit of history repeating. Beginning to wonder why the club didn't send a man to guard Maddie the night she disappeared as well. Ashley took Maddie

Me. If that was the 'policy' we would have signed Reo Coker rather than Cabaye. We'll be looking at a young player from the UK or abroad, not a past it player on inflated wages (for their ability)

Yes, but I think I've been in denial about the whole thing. Was half hoping he'd stick around until at least January, by which time we might have been doing SO well that he would have considered staying on. Wishful thinking eh? What it's brought home is the fact that this could have been so avoidable had some sort of ambition been shown in the past few months. Whilst Enrique may have decided to piss off anyway, there would at least have been an attempt to keep him. Fair point, I still believe the main reason is that he has just become good enough to attract the attention of other clubs while simultaneously coming to the end of his contract. The most shocking thing is the destination really, I would have said "fair enough" if he'd gone to Barca or even Arsenal, but Liverpool takes the piss. Don't worry, I dare say the increased media attention he'll be getting by playing for those twats will mean he'll get noticed by those bigger clubs. I fucking detest Liverpool and that smug cunt Dogleish, but you've got to hand it to them, they're clearly ambitious. Boils my piss that we were at their level not 6 months ago. Couldn't think of a bunch of fans least deserving of success at the mo tbh. I'd say watch this space with Liverpool. Henry has already said in the media he expects top 4 this season, I personally don't see a top 4 squad there. They've wasted Champions League fees (and probably wages) on top 6 at best players. Just after the takeover it was also publically announced that Liverpool would be self funding - if KD can't get top 4 expect to see some turmoil and changes over there, and thats before any funding is needed for a new stadium. So yes they are likely to finish above us, but it's by no means a return to their glory days

That would be assuming that level of investment is fixed, and not with an owner who is paying his own loan back to himself every season Wheres the link for this? Last I'd heard more money had been paid into the club, not taken out but a couple of posts have indicated the money is being taken out so I'd like to see where this has come from

who is? not heard anyone calling for that level of investment, perhaps ages ago when we sold carroll people might have got excited but in the cold light of day no-one is expecting that imo, no-one I'm not trawling trough the board to get names, but there are plenty of comments in the transfer threads adding the Carroll and Nolan fees together and moaning that we're not reinvesting it all

right, it's always extremes - ask for investment and it gets answered with "we could have paid 10m for carlton cole" well aye, we could, but we could also maybe have scouted another player that might have been mint for the same price, or more, or less, if we were serious about wanting quality on the pitch We did - we got Ba on a free ok so we got one good striker for free, and in response to asking for the club to spend you answer with "we could have pissed 10m away on carlton cole" it doesn't add up...why can we only be astute when there's no money involved? Its a general thing though, not a specific on a player. People are moaning about the fact we have not spent £35m plus this summer and proclaiming it as a sign that the club is showing no ambition as we have only been signing freebies and those with magic clauses. I'm saying that we could have substituted our signings so far with the likes of Cole, or spent stupid money on the likes of Henderson. I'm not saying we shouldn't still be looking at improving the squad further but I am happy with the players we have brought in so far. Of course another spin on our activity is that we are looking at value, regardless of how it comes about. We could have signed Reo-Coker on a free but our centre midfield signing so far has been Cabaye - thats £4.5m less that Mike's going to be able to take out of the club now isn't it? Oh, and going off today's game - I'm even more firmly in the 'need for more reinforcements camp'. We're still too light in reserve at best.

Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Randy Learner? But then even he has reigned in the spending. No-one should be folled with what's going on at Liverpool, there will be a 'cycle' where the club is forced to break even. If the Champs League doesn't reappear, then player sales will follow to balance things up. I screwed up and left out Liverpool, obviously. I didn't notice! And I screwed up in not being able to spell fooled!

And then they would be slagged off for getting into tit-for-tat exchanges. Most of what has come out on twitter etc has been directed at MA and DL, not the club as a whole. Personally, I'm glad that MA doesn't have a twitter account that he uses to respond to these sort of things

Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Randy Learner? But then even he has reigned in the spending. No-one should be folled with what's going on at Liverpool, there will be a 'cycle' where the club is forced to break even. If the Champs League doesn't reappear, then player sales will follow to balance things up.

Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Man U are spending the Ronaldo money this summer in reality though

right, it's always extremes - ask for investment and it gets answered with "we could have paid 10m for carlton cole" well aye, we could, but we could also maybe have scouted another player that might have been mint for the same price, or more, or less, if we were serious about wanting quality on the pitch We did - we got Ba on a free

You know what, I'd stick money on the fact that none of the above were telling the whole truth, there will be spin and/or personal opinion invovled in everything anyone says when it is released into the public domain.