Colos Short and Curlies

The last bit is all news to me. Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half? Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like. This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in Rubbish, the debt value stayed the same, it was just the payment profile which changed. It may just be the way MB has written it, but it reads like 'I thought it was £71m but it was actually more', when actually it should be 'I thought I had 3 years to pay £71m but I had half an hour'

The last bit is all news to me. Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half? Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like. the july bit i'd assume is so the auditors will sign it off. basically he is guarnteeing the debts through the financial trading year. (i think) Correct

Well I agree of course, but to be fair despite Ashley not spending any of his own money on transfers we haven't been in profit on transfers since he's been here. When has transfer money ever gone in his pocket? Been saying this for the past couple of days. Past history suggests that 100% of all sale proceeds will be reinvested in players

Thats what everyone said before the game at SJP. They are still weak as piss at the back and midfield is only so so. Colo and Bassong have a good game and a point or three isn't out of the question

The lack of smiley suggests you are not being ironic! Beardsley Pav Bernard Elliott

But hes a whiz at pro evo so its all ok

Because both of them will bring the club to hell--- just like the difference between final stage cancer and certified death. Either one of them is enough to evaluate Fred's reign imo. You rarely see a club that can recover very soon after administration rite? How many clubs have gone into liquidation? Oh and your comment re 'either one of them is enough to evaluate Freds regin' is completely wrong. Liquidation - The club ceases to be, all assets sold of to pay those who we owe money to. Administration - The club is run by an outside body for a period of time to bring its debts under control, pay of its creditors and get it to a level where it can be sold to a new owner and continue to operate. Only if administration failed would liquidation be an option for a business like NUFC which has a number of sellable assets and strong cash inflows. It would sting like hell in the short run, but in the long run companies can come out of administration in a better position then when they went in. (on a side note I doubt that relegation would tip us into administration wtraight away now. We have a number of high earners leving the club in the summer and a number of players who would generate decent enough fees to put the club on a stable footing for a short period in the fizzy pop league)

The answer is because Fred is s***. Understand? The others are able to do it with reasonable debt. Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt. That's why I said your question is silly. The answer contradicts with your stands. You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football. Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on. Give it up man. It is meaningless. So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand? Kecks off and arse bared in Fenwicks if that one gets a properly argued response Hence it being asked! He's used the terms interchangably over the past couple of pages and I doubt he knows the difference between the two or the different approaches taken during each process I think he's claimed to be an accountant as well. But why would you claim to be an accountant if you're not? I'm a bloody good one (if I do say so myself!), and proud of it. But I wouldn't exactly say its a sexy or impressive thing to claim to be

Colo wins

The answer is because Fred is s***. Understand? The others are able to do it with reasonable debt. Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt. That's why I said your question is silly. The answer contradicts with your stands. You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football. Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on. Give it up man. It is meaningless. So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand? Kecks off and arse bared in Fenwicks if that one gets a properly argued response Hence it being asked! He's used the terms interchangably over the past couple of pages and I doubt he knows the difference between the two or the different approaches taken during each process

Who? Villa? No West Ham who;ve just found £7.5m for 19 year old Brescia striker Savio Nsereko. Surely West Ham are in worse financial straits than NUFC, and if £7.5m is the going rate for promising young talent Dennis must be shopping at Netto? Bellamy's replacement making the club about £6m in the process I imagine. And were about to sell Given for £10m and havent reinvested the Milner money. West Ham have broken their transfer record to land this kid. It us like us spending £20m. Yep, it's exactly the same... I wouldnt say exactly but its more meaningful than a pound for pound comparison. So has Ashley stuck £12m in to the blub for transfers in the summer or was the Milner money reinvested to bring Net (urghhh!) spend to nil? Like it or not Ashley has stuck every penny raised from sales back into transfers

Who? Villa? No West Ham who;ve just found £7.5m for 19 year old Brescia striker Savio Nsereko. Surely West Ham are in worse financial straits than NUFC, and if £7.5m is the going rate for promising young talent Dennis must be shopping at Netto? Bellamy's replacement making the club about £6m in the process I imagine. Not to mention a couple of mill a year on wages

The answer is because Fred is s***. Understand? The others are able to do it with reasonable debt. Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt. That's why I said your question is silly. The answer contradicts with your stands. You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football. Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on. Give it up man. It is meaningless. So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand?

Probably to have a zero-spending summer and use the season-ticket sales to pay off a portion of the debt so as to lower the debt ratio and the interest cost. They can afford a season without CL, but not two. If that's the case, we could see Torres going to Inter/RM/Barca whatever for 25-35m for paying off the debt. Unlikely to happen though. To kick Liverpool out of CL spot, Villa and the Gunners have to do even better next season. I fucking hope so tbh. They only need to finish third (which btw I think they will at best). They almost got knocked out in the prelims this season

It's actually quite secure. Consistent Champions League Last 8/4 results did give them very good revenue figure. They may have kinda short term liquidity problem but if the debts are asked to paid back immediately they do have the ability to pay off the debt. I agree though that their financial position aren't good and is already overspending. Couldn't afford another big-spending summer---and Benitiez may leave because of lack of funds. So what do you think will happen if they dont qualfiy for the CL? They borrowed 100% of the Torres fee and the repayments have started to kick in. They couldn't raise the finance for a new stadium. If they failed to qualify for the CL then Torres and maybe even Gerrard would be sold. Yes if required Gillett and Hicks could use their provate finance to repay any debt, but they would struggle to raise the same level of debt finance on their current model. Its a bit like saying Ashley has £800m in the bank so NUFC are safe and cash rich. The owners and the club are two seperate entities.

1. Don't give me example like Chelsea. Debt towards owner is just like our current debt towards Ashley. Isn't really a kind of debt. 2. Man Utd/Liverpool and most debt-carrying clubs are generating enough revenue or has very good liquidity to give the creditors confidence that they can pay the debt. As a result they don't need to repay the debt in short-term. This is not the case for Newcastle, which the huge loan is just down to "personal credit" by Fred. Mind you personal credit counts nothing actually. There's a lot of clauses inside these kinda loan contract, so called loan covenant, that the debt needs to be paid immediately under several circumstances. Change of ownership is not the only one but just one of those terms. So don't try to say "if Ashley don't buy the club, we don't need to repay the debt soon and we won't face administration". Never. 3. Well I start to doubt whether you are really a Newcastle fans. So you are willing to take a gamble for "getting back into Europe" by "risking the club into administration". Are you ok? Don't say something like "No Europe, No Newcastle". You will be classified as glory seekers. You are wrong about Liverpool btw, their debts are a long way from being secure

He's kept his head down and brought in a number of seemingly promising young players. We as fans have berated the club for neglating this area since time began. So yes he seems to be doing his job. If we get one established first teamer, a couple of squad players and sell a few for a £500k plus then its a job well done imo. Don't know what went on re Xisco/Keegan/Wise so not commenting

Good point. Young - Talented - Big potential - Black - :thup: Power - :thup: :thup: :thup: Fyp Whats the deal with the balck power man - we've got Nile Ranger and he has more black power than Mr T and Apollo Creed put together

It looks inevitable so good bye and good luck Shay, thanks for the memories and performances over the years. Now is the time for Harper to step up, he has a chance to be a genuine number one and not just a place warmer. And I'm not worried if its £10m straight or a player swap, despite what most people seem to think in this thread the indications are that the whole £10m wil be reinvested in the team, we've not exactly run at massive transfer surpluses with Ashley have we???

Sporting was sickening, Man U the following weekend was soul destroying (although didn't Shola score?). The fans were fantastic that day btw. The team did not deserve them one bit

Chelsea semi for me. Honourable mention for the season where Graveson took Bernard out at Goodison (always get the 3rd/4th place seasons mixed up). Had we beaten Everton theat day we had a damn good shot at winning the league

The stock market price reflected the value of the company to the current owners (i.e. Halls and Shepherd). With hindsight it was overvalued as the proce did not factor in the fact that a large proportion of the company debt had a change of ownership clause forcing repayment within months rather than years. Had Ashley known this he could have argued that (a) the price was too high or (b) he should pay for the shares in installments rather than all at once. Every company has items which on the face if it look OK, but if you dig deeper could cause problems down the line. Its up to the auditors to decide on (a) the likelyhood of the problems and (b) their impact on the current standing of the company. When the last Hall/Shepherd accounts were signed (a) was pretty remote due to the revenue generated by the company and no trigger to change the payment structure of the debt. So before anyone jumps in, the accounts were not wrong at any time.

You can probably knock £11m off the loss straight away as Sams pay off and Interest payable re the change of ownership were one off hits. Who knows what we'll be lumbered with this year

That's what I was getting at earlier, just didn't phrase it that well. So if the 'real' loss is £2.5m, are people justified in claiming Ashley should have spent more on the first team? It wasn't the real loss in cash terms. We went from owing £70 million at 30th June 2007 to owing £100 million at 30th June 2008, increasing to £110 million after that. If you forget amortisation (which is a perfectly good concept btw) and all that and just focus on Ashley's cash position it puts it into perspective. £30 million of extra cash was stuck into the business for the club to (at best) stand still. where do you think that's gone, considering wages only went up £5m and player trading only cost half a mil net? is it a case of one-off costs associated with the takeover or is the club just not being ran all that well? I posted this earlier, it's the best I can do given the time and information at my disposal. It just shows where the cash went under fairly broad headings. Cash flow in basic terms: Operating cash flow - £5 million (ie cash loss on day to day business) Finance servicing costs - £8 million (mostly interest on loans now paid off) Net capital spend - £21 million (net spending on assets, haven't had time to look closer yet!) Loan repayment - £70 million (obvious) Total out = £104 million This was financed by : Ashley £100 million Overdraft £4 million Total £104 million cheers. the £21m looks like the key figure. the debt repayment is switching to a more favourable lender (ashley), £8m no longer applies and as we wont be paying that we shouldnt really be making a loss. wonder what the £21m has been spent on, something to do with 'the system'? Players as well I thought players fee's were only included as assets which are then depreciated over the course of his contract? How can they also be included as a seperate cost? Or am I misunderstanding what you've just said there? Two seperate things. In the P&L the cost of players is spread over the length of the original contract - i.e Michael Owen 'costs' the club £4m each year in ammortisation. The £21m is physical cash outflow, i.e what has gone out of the bank. The cashflow shows what goes on during the year and is a factual statement - you can't hide a cash flow (even if you can ahem rename it to fit your business). With the P&L it can be manipulated (legally) to tell the story that the business wants the readers to read. It may well be that some costs have been accelerated this year rather than holding them back for future periods to show a bad picture this year and a vast improvement next (or vice versa (what ever happened to those btw?).

Not sure if this helps: Yes but why not instead just look at what we paid for the likes of Coloccini ect vs what we made on players sold at the same time. That's a better indicator of real money lost and what Ashley might have had to put in himself to keep the club debt free. The fact is amortisation doesn't reflect real losses in this particular year. As in the £17.8 million "loss" did not actually require Ashley to spend £17.8 million, because its a paper loss based on depreciation of players values who were bought 3 or 4 or even 5 years ago. Cashflow my friend