Parky

Good survey. Done.

Looks like it. The absolute worst case scenario.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted. As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot. Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!! Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league. Regardless of whether Ashley could have borrowed 3 times the amount of his entire wealth (an "interesting"suggestion), why would he do so to fund a venture like a football club? The likes of Lerner, Abramovitch, Al Fayed have all funded their club from existing funds. The reality is that Ashley is not rich enough to own a Premiership club - so I can go along with your last sentence. Partially agree. Common sense dictates if you get into the big boys game, you need to act like a big boy (or give a passing resemblence). I don't think he ever understood the football business, but what killed him was not hiring a good team with good advisors. A General manager with a strong football background should have been the first port of call. He's always run Sports Direct with trusted mates in positions of responsibility. And he's sort of got away with it. But selliing crap to Chavs where marketing is largely based on communicating false closing down sales and fictitious discounts is a far cry from the relatively sophisticated world of Premiership football - out of his depth in every possible way. Yup. What a fucktoid.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted. As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot. Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!! Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league. Regardless of whether Ashley could have borrowed 3 times the amount of his entire wealth (an "interesting"suggestion), why would he do so to fund a venture like a football club? The likes of Lerner, Abramovitch, Al Fayed have all funded their club from existing funds. The reality is that Ashley is not rich enough to own a Premiership club - so I can go along with your last sentence. Partially agree. Common sense dictates if you get into the big boys game, you need to act like a big boy (or give a passing resemblence). I don't think he ever understood the football business, but what killed him was not hiring a good team with good advisors. A General manager with a strong football background should have been the first port of call.

Have said it somewhere in this thread, you can't be asking for a 100m for a club that costs 20m every 3 months to run (as is). He (MA) is either greedy or doesn't want to sell. I think he's greedy and now doesnt give a s*** what happens to the club. I've a feeling he'd rather run us into the ground and asset strip than he would accept a lower price If the club is run into the ground then any 'asset stripping' will go to pay creditors ie outstanding transfers, banks etc as well as Ashleys loan. Its a long drawn out and utterly pointless exercise which no sane person would chose over simply selling and and cutting whatever losses he has now. To start off saying he is greedy then summerising he prefers to take a massive loss is a strange conclusion I mean he'll asset strip first. NOt sure what these assets are? Other than players what exactly do you think he can sell? Exactly.

Have said it somewhere in this thread, you can't be asking for a 100m for a club that costs 20m every 3 months to run (as is). He (MA) is either greedy or doesn't want to sell. I think he's greedy and now doesnt give a s*** what happens to the club. I've a feeling he'd rather run us into the ground and asset strip than he would accept a lower price If the club is run into the ground then any 'asset stripping' will go to pay creditors ie outstanding transfers, banks etc as well as Ashleys loan. Its a long drawn out and utterly pointless exercise which no sane person would chose over simply selling and and cutting whatever losses he has now. To start off saying he is greedy then summerising he prefers to take a massive loss is a strange conclusion I mean he'll asset strip first. NOt sure what these assets are?

source ? Pompey 20m Villa 42m i meant the terms of repaying the loan etc. Obsessed with loans and debt. Welcome to PL football 2009.

Have said it somewhere in this thread, you can't be asking for a 100m for a club that costs 20m every 3 months to run (as is). He (MA) is either greedy or doesn't want to sell. I think he's greedy and now doesnt give a shit what happens to the club. I've a feeling he'd rather run us into the ground and asset strip than he would accept a lower price I'm not so sure looking at the price he wants to sell, it's summat I've been pondering the last weeks. It's a smokescreen so he doesn't have to do owt during the summer.

source ? Pompey 20m Villa 42m

i honestly think putting the club up then was a publicity exercise and he deliberatly put a ridiculous price so either, he sells at a stupid price or he ends up keeping it which he wanted. as has been said a few times on here i think his plan was to stop up with minimum investment till he could get shot of the high wage earners then invest through the clubs earnings and sustainable debt. Nothing he's done even remotely suggests that. Wages went up under him for a start. I agree he didn't want to sell the first time.

Have said it somewhere in this thread, you can't be asking for a 100m for a club that costs 20m every 3 months to run (as is). He (MA) is either greedy or doesn't want to sell.

Aye. Let's not forget also, he probably didn't even have to look at the books. he he...

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. The only problem the club has is badly negotiated player contracts, other than that it the last club left on the shelf with massive potential. So you are not of the opinion that the club is worth f*ck all? At 100m (+debt) with these players, in this league with these monkeys on crack running it - it's worth fuck all. I've always maintained 50-60m was a fair price.

Nein.

Well it was more than 70m and if you include the wage bill, installments made to other clubs on players purchased more than we had. I could cut the wage bill to 15m in the time it takes to make 5 phone calls. come on then You can't afford me.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted. As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot. Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!! Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league. you mean he never wanted to do an abaramovich (even on a smaller scale) and bankroll the club ? Why buy a football club if you're not going to grow the business?

Well it was more than 70m and if you include the wage bill, installments made to other clubs on players purchased more than we had. I could cut the wage bill to 15m in the time it takes to make 5 phone calls.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted. As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot. Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!! Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. 99% of PL clubs struggle financially.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. The only problem the club has is badly negotiated player contracts, other than that it the last club left on the shelf with massive potential.

Good point regarding Shepherd, though he has supposedly been out of the country and I bet the 'BBC Sport understands' stuff came from him blabbing to someone. I don't think you have much to worry about anyway, because I reckon he's probably just lodged a cheapo in case everything else falls through. This isn't based on anything of course, just hunch. I think he's bid 60m and is waiting for the fallout from the other bids (if any are still in that is).

When have we ever demanded to be on the board? and give one instance of the SSN comment, are you seriously suggesting that NUSC have stood in front of the cameras and shouted abuse, acted pissed up and generally done any of those things? You arranged a protest whcih will only attract the type of shameful appearances you get on SSN. Demand might have been the wrong word, but you requested for a seat in the boardroom when decisions were made in your open letter to Llambias/Ashley. Shouldn't the supporters group have representation in the boardroom?

Eh? It's a mature and reasoned response to your post. What more do you want like? I didn't say it wasn't a mature and reasoned response, my argument is if you say anything negative about the NUSC they'll be a counter post straight away that makes you feel you're wrong unless you follow the belief that the NUSC is great. Which is a shame, as it rubs me the wrong way as if I'm being forced to think they're some great group working to better Newcastle United, when as of yet I haven't seen anything to suggest it is. What are they doing then?

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

Like and representative organisation it isn't designed for the views of lone gunmen and crackpots but the views of the majority.