Parky

9pts?

His main argument is that MA won't do it cause MA would be the main loser as it is his asset and we owe him the debt. But that doesn't take into account the huge continued outgoings and the lack of money coming in which is putting off prospective buyers imo. If a buyer could get the club for £5m why would he pay £100m. Not an expert but we need to put the survival of the club before MA's needs.

Thoughts? It is clear MA is not putting any more money in and with our outgoings and only £2m CCC money to look forward to plus 15m parachute money, this might be the time to bite the bullet. I'm no expert, but I wonder if this might be the best time? Only MA would be the big loser if I understand the process and a new buyer could have the club for much less than a 100m. *Tin hat on*

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/americans-favourite--to-take-over-newcastle-1705349.html Too vague to believe.

He might just think its not worth his time planning more wanton destruction as the future owner won't let him. RFYP.

Fuck reality and cold assesments...Bring on Shearer. Let's rock!!

Never.

We better hope to god FS comes back. The malaise is so bad not sure anyone else will touch it.

But will they eat together?

FS seems ahead of the game for once. Nitey Night.

What's it going to take for some people to get that we're not going to be put into administration? One more time: The point of going into administration is to protect yourself from your creditors. We have only one major creditor, his name is Mike Ashley. Why would Mike Ashley want to protect Mike Ashley from Mike Ashley? Tbf he does need protecting from himself.

Bet people carping on about TPG haven't even looked at their dodgy website.

I think he's had second thoughts on AS till the sale is sorted.

Its not about justifying anything, its about trying to look at the issue objectively. Were not in a position to be fussy and Shepherd has a wealth of relevant experience. Hes had the opportunity to learn from his mistakes - the Profitable group would be learning as they go along. Or Shepherd would continue making mistakes just like he was right up until he left - the Profitable Group might come in with new ideas & do really well, just like the Halls did at the outset. There really is no way of knowing. The profitable group have no money. MA will hold on till he can recoup player sales into his pocket. Watch and see.

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. Smoke and mirrors covering for a monumental cock-up by MA of not doing the appropriate checks and his outpourings were his get out clause for spending almost F*** all on players. The world of top flight football runs on debt. It is not like we were struggling for turnover. By Jove! I believe we have a winner!

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me. Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying. Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m. How do they continue??? maybe they aren't borrowing 30mill a year to finance that debt. (villa have lerner to back it up and pompey couldn't do it, thats the main reason their owner sold them) And Everton are for sale because Kenwright knows he and the current owners can't take it any further. I agree. This is now the nature of the beast for many clubs, but MA made it look like we were unique and in danger of going out of business which was a clear lie. whislt i agree with that (i don't think anyone believed it was imminent) i also think our position was one which needed remedying as soon as possible. Of course. But the time to get the wage burden down was this summer while sucking another chunk of PL money, not fucking about in the last 2 windows.

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me. Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying. Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m. How do they continue??? maybe they aren't borrowing 30mill a year to finance that debt. (villa have lerner to back it up and pompey couldn't do it, thats the main reason their owner sold them) And Everton are for sale because Kenwright knows he and the current owners can't take it any further. I agree. This is now the nature of the beast for many clubs, but MA made it look like we were unique and in danger of going out of business which was a clear lie.

@qauy The majority of the PL have hit this wall, mainly due to spiraling wages and player values which fluctuate season to season. So this is no excuse to make profits in transfer windows and get relegated. If we'd have stayed up, taking Owen, Viduka, Butt and Given off the wage bill would have saved an immediate 10m this season of the wage bill.

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me. Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying. Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m. How do they continue??? maybe they aren't borrowing 30mill a year to finance that debt. (villa have lerner to back it up and pompey couldn't do it, thats the main reason their owner sold them) I'm keen to see how we need to borrow 30m to service debt. Show me.

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me. Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying. Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m. How do they continue???

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. There are big companies in the business world who haven't made a profit for 20 years how do you think they carry on?

My point is that operating in the PL the club could carry 100m debt. It was MA sole drive to get debt down so he could sell, no other reason. His spin caused blind panic on this here and other football boards.

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. OK - I’ll have a go at that point by point. You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security. Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans: • £43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016. • £13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010. • £4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground. • £8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue. • £1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground. Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed. Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club? The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap. Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it? On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I haven’t seen it. Of course the club didn’t go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?. I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do. Football clubs rarely make money Quay. Live with it.

Lost the past. The jet didn't land on the island.