Unbelievable

Some good points there, didn't realise he was 29. 2 million for a player they no longer want and barely played for a season. He's 29, not 41 FFS. He's got a good few years left in the tank at this level. Also, he has a pretty impressive goalscoring record throughout the years, and most recently moved for a massive 24 million. They were never ever going to accept 2 million, therefore it's pretty much the definition of a pisstake that we even wasted their and our time suggesting it to them (whether we actually bid or not).

Bent is pretty much viewed as Shola is by any football club that is run with any degree of professionalism. They are not wanted. Been little or no interest in Bent and Shola is available but again no interest. Why? Because they are both a complete waste of space. Comparing Bent to Shola? Is this real?

Because Arry is talking out of his arse as per usual. I wouldn't be so sure. It was always wishful thinking he would join us on loan, with them paying a part (probably the majority knowing how we take the piss in negotiations) of his wages.

A club, probably not us, will come in for him this window. He's worth the gamble, after he's shown he can cut the business in this league, even for a team as hopeless as QPR.

What's happened to give you such a positive outlook in recent days? Have you been drinking IanW's piss?

Ah well, next!

I can't fathom how it is good for the future. That implies that because some of the loan to Ashley is repaid today, it need not be repaid in the future. But that's an illusion. If the club can convince enough of the fanbase that this 'debt' is somehow the duty of the club (and with it the goodwill of the supporters) to repay Ashley as an individual then it will be a great sleight of hand. If 'the club' - the players and staff and buildings and everything that makes the business run is worth £100m, and Ashley is owed £150m, then Ashley's shares are worth -£50m. £150m+(-£50m)=£100m, that would be the total cash Ashley would bank from a sale at fair price today. However if the 'loan' is repaid over time by controlling cash spend and getting the pickup on TV money, then the loan could be paid down to say £50m. The club can still be valued at £100m, so the equity is worth £50m. £50m+£50m=£100m, the same as before. The crucial difference being that £100m has been taken out already- meaning that Ashley recoups a total of £200m rather than the £100m he might get today. That is why we should not conisder this loan as 'debt' nor should we consider it a duty or a good thing should the club opt to repay this rather than use funds on the football side. Instead we should consider the loan as equity and the debt repayments as dividends- as the impact on the ability of the club to perform on the pitch (which is what we really care about) is the same. Hallefuckingluja!

We may as well shut NO down..

Whether you have paid off debts or not is largely irrelevant in valuing thr company. You value the business operations- that is what you are buying. To get to the value of the equity in the business you take the business valuation (usually a multiple of earnings) then subtract long-term debt (ie not day-to-day working capital) and add back cash. There was a great article on this featuring David Wilkinson of Deloitte, who is a very nice man and clearly knows his stuff: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/how-much-would-cost-buy-4803989 Splash another £20m on players would you mike, it'll be 'reet. Do you or do you not accept that in today's top flight football, most if not all (other) clubs do not live within their means, and indeed many receive outside investment from their owners? If so, how do you expect us to compete with them long term? There's a balance to be struck here between financial awareness and controlled ambition, which is not only absolute, but also relative to our competitors, and we're nowhere near getting it right. If I was a shareholder of NUFC I would be delighted by Ashley's management, but I'm not. I'm a football fan, and I want to be entertained for the money and effort I put into the club, not support a balance sheet, but a team sheet. If Ashley does not understand the difference between a SD shop and NUFC he's even thicker than he looks. Do you thing living outside of your means is a viable long-term option? No. Is living within your means? Probably. OK, so we win there. And ofc, I will put the big assumption that we invest sufficiently and progress in lots of different areas. I'm a football fan too, but I'd rather support a well run club that operates within its means on money the club makes, which doesn't have to rely on some oil rich arab family whose fundamental purpose for ownership is to use the club as an advertising vehicle or on money made illegally from the fall of the Soviet Union. We'll be sitting handsomely in the lower leagues a few years down the line if we don't keep up with the competition, but hey ho, at least we'll have paid off our debt! We win indeed. As for that last sentence about not wanting an owner who uses the club as an advertising vehicle: are you for fucking real!?

The image of Joe fucking Kinnear sitting in a Villa boardroom saying something along the lines of: "Look lads, we are very interested in Derrick Bent, but we don't really value him at more than two million. We will not be making an offer at this time, because there's plenty of time left in the window, but keep us in the loop until deadline day so we can try and trash out a deal then. 'kay, thanks!" Ashley's penny pinching combined with Kinnear's negotiation skills, we're onto a winner here lads!

Whether you have paid off debts or not is largely irrelevant in valuing thr company. You value the business operations- that is what you are buying. To get to the value of the equity in the business you take the business valuation (usually a multiple of earnings) then subtract long-term debt (ie not day-to-day working capital) and add back cash. There was a great article on this featuring David Wilkinson of Deloitte, who is a very nice man and clearly knows his stuff: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/how-much-would-cost-buy-4803989 Splash another £20m on players would you mike, it'll be 'reet. Do you or do you not accept that in today's top flight football, most if not all (other) clubs do not live within their means, and indeed many receive outside investment from their owners? If so, how do you expect us to compete with them long term? There's a balance to be struck here between financial awareness and controlled ambition, which is not only absolute, but also relative to our competitors, and we're nowhere near getting it right. If I was a shareholder of NUFC I would be delighted by Ashley's management, but I'm not. I'm a football fan, and I want to be entertained for the money and effort I put into the club, not support a balance sheet, but a team sheet. If Ashley does not understand the difference between a SD shop and NUFC he's even thicker than he looks.

Whether you have paid off debts or not is largely irrelevant in valuing thr company. You value the business operations- that is what you are buying. To get to the value of the equity in the business you take the business valuation (usually a multiple of earnings) then subtract long-term debt (ie not day-to-day working capital) and add back cash. There was a great article on this featuring David Wilkinson of Deloitte, who is a very nice man and clearly knows his stuff: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/how-much-would-cost-buy-4803989 Good read. Some excellent reactions to it as well. Here's a section from somebody who seems to know what he's talking about, which backs up my point, as you do too btw, that Ashley paying off the debt will not automatically lower Ashley's asking price, but will more likely have the opposite effect:

The loan i believe can be made to be paid in full back to Ashley at any time, so if you pay the asking price for the club, your also going to have to pay that £100million quid loan back straight away on top of it too. SO if he's asking for £200million for the club, the real price will actually be £300 million for any buyers. I understand that people think that way, but in general terms, isn't the asking price of a company being sold largely based on its assets (i.e. objects or intangibles, or in our case players' resale value for the main part), its equity (how much of the financing of the assets are owned by the company itself vs how much by others, banks, etc. - the higher the part owned by the company itself, the better in terms of company value) and its profitability (the more profitable a company, the easier it is to get a return on investment). I know of no valuation mechanism where paying off loans to outside parties (i.e. the company effectively owning more of its assets outright) is considered a bad thing for its overall value when it is up for sale. Again, what am I missing?

By their own reporting principles, we're actually millions in the black (including wages).

What is it with people thinking a company that has paid off its debts is worth LESS to potential buyers than one that hasn't, what with assets being the same and profitability probably higher (otherwise how pay off the loan). I'm no accountant, but when Ashley starts repaying large chunks of our interest free loan, I don't see how that benefits the club or us as supporters at all. It's just profits going out of the company that could have been reinvested, and has no (negative) bearing on any asking price for the club, or am I missing something?

As I've said before, we're just posturing.

after

I don't know where this perception that we are debt free even comes from. We have a huge debt, only we don't pay any interest on it, which is the one thing I appreciate from Ashley's ownership. Now if he would put the money saved, plus some additional investment (he promised 20 million a year yonks ago) to good use in the transfer market (manager and players) we might go somewhere. As it is, we're just drifting aimlessly.

In our case right now it's to sell the club. Which makes this whole debate about debt irrelevant. What makes you think Ashley is actively looking to sell the club? From what I can see he's trying to make the club self sustainable/profitable at all cost, providing him a "free" advertising platform in the most important/best viewed football league in the world for his primary business interest, and a chance to periodically grab the Geordies by the proverbial balls for the insults we directed at him. I would be delighted if he sold up, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.

Ideal squad player for us.

Heh?

I've never said Short is the bee's knees. He's just a lot better as an owner than Ashley, which says more about the latter than the prior.

Man City's and Chelsea's are even worse. We better tell them that next year's Premiership table will be based on accounts posted, not points gained on the football pitch. Probably why Sunderland have fallen just short of those two. Way to miss the point.. I haven't said their entire setup is better than ours, just that as an owner, he is pulling his weight and not afraid to go in a different direction if things don't work out. Simple question: would you prefer Ashley or Short as our owner? Can I say neither? You can throw all the money in the world at managers but if the managers you appoint are constantly s*** it isn't going to do much (see Souness, G). As I said before, at least Ashley has got one important thing right with Graham Carr. If Short came here, appointed poor managers and gave them lots of money so spend on average players would you be happy? You mentioned earlier 'Imagine Short giving money to Carr' but ignored the fact that Short could have appointed his own chief scout who has those contacts/ability and Sunderland would be flying. He hasn't which is why despite making a lot of money available they are no further forward than us despite us gifting them our relegation to move out of our shadows and be well ahead of us. Short like Ashley has consistently made poor decisions which is why neither club are where they should be. Short has just appointed a new chief scout and a new manager. Let's see how it goes before blowing our own trumpet. I would say as a proposition we are far more interesting than Sunderland too, although the gap is fast being bridged. What top class managers would have come to Sunderland five years ago, or even now? The bottom line is they are moving in the right direction slowly but surely, whereas we are moving in the opposite direction. And no, you can't say neither as that would mean we would have no owner, and therefore wouldn't probably exist.. Well I wouldn't want either Short has money he throws at poor managers. Ashley has pennies he throws at a top scout. Actually I go with Ashley as I believe we have the better squad despite no real money being available, a clearout of deadwood and a complete rebuilding. Sunderland MIGHT go on to do well with their new set up but that is all guess work. Over the last few years I would say we have done better and are better placed to move on. The whole sticking point seems to be "if the chairman/owner appoints the right manager", well I really believe if we appointed a quality manager we would be in a MUCH better position than them. We are a couple of players off a really good squad and about 4 players off a brilliant squad. Too early to say what Sunderland's latest overhaul of players will do but I would have really struggled to have 1-2 of their players in ours last season. Funny how you mention their poor managers vs our good scout. What about Ashley's managerial appointments, including the one already lined up to replace the mediocre current one? You're the one claiming Short is light years ahead of Ashley ffs! I am, because he is. Bought the club outright, no loans to himself, invests 30M gross/10M nett on transfers on average per season, can resist the urge to not splash his company name all over the stadium. He's made one manager appointment that worked out relatively OK (Bruce) and one that didn't (MON; and even then there were plenty of people on here who wanted him here when he was at Villa). Now compare that to Ashley: massive loan that needs to be repaid, negative transfer investment, makes a laughing stock of the club every six months, has a clusterfuck of a record for appointing managers. Oh, and he has appointed a good scout, who just happens to be a lifelong fan of the club, and who is rewarded for his duties by having the most embarrassing man in football as his boss. I know who I'd rather have.

You're half way in understanding my argument. It's progress I guess, so I shall cheer you on. Now compare those to the ones from before he took over. Then, do the same to ours and consider which club has improved under their new owner, and which has regressed. There's a good boy.