quayside

Your scenario is really just a technicality though. Unless I''ve missed something St James Holdings now owns all of the share capital of Newcastle United, and Ashley owns all of (or if not the significant majority of) the capital of SJH. Therefore the only person Ashley has to answer to in terms of the accounts of Newcastle United is Ashley himself. Hence, whever the money was put into the club as share capital (highly unlikey imo) or just effectively gave the club the cash is irrelevent unless there is a structured repayment (again I doubt this to be the case in the short term at least). Ashley (for all his good work so far) is unlikely to die as the owner of Newcastle United, therefore he will be looking to ge this money back (including the debt repayment) at that point. He can (theroetically) make more return on his cash by leaving it in the club (more funds = better transfers = more prize money) than he would in a bank. Sorry if thats a bit muddled, just grabbing 5 mins here at work so can't proof think this through! No that's not muddled. Think you are right about St James Holdings and can't disagree with the rest of what you say. My point was more aimed at whether the loan has been wiped or not and the difference between capital and loan finance. The Abramovich example is an extreme one but I think its interesting that he has not shown the commitment to convert so much of his funding into capital. Makes Chelsea Limited's balance sheet look extremely sick as well! What does that mean in laymans terms? It means that, due to the loans owed to their owner, Chelsea are technically insolvent (by about £300 million) and if Abramovich was so minded he could pull the plug on it. But if he had put the money in as capital instead of loan that danger (although remote) would not exist.

Your scenario is really just a technicality though. Unless I''ve missed something St James Holdings now owns all of the share capital of Newcastle United, and Ashley owns all of (or if not the significant majority of) the capital of SJH. Therefore the only person Ashley has to answer to in terms of the accounts of Newcastle United is Ashley himself. Hence, whever the money was put into the club as share capital (highly unlikey imo) or just effectively gave the club the cash is irrelevent unless there is a structured repayment (again I doubt this to be the case in the short term at least). Ashley (for all his good work so far) is unlikely to die as the owner of Newcastle United, therefore he will be looking to ge this money back (including the debt repayment) at that point. He can (theroetically) make more return on his cash by leaving it in the club (more funds = better transfers = more prize money) than he would in a bank. Sorry if thats a bit muddled, just grabbing 5 mins here at work so can't proof think this through! No that's not muddled. Think you are right about St James Holdings and can't disagree with the rest of what you say. My point was more aimed at whether the loan has been wiped or not and the difference between capital and loan finance. The Abramovich example is an extreme one but I think its interesting that he has not shown the commitment to convert so much of his funding into capital. Makes Chelsea Limited's balance sheet look extremely sick as well!

The 2nd scenario you mention doesn't seem to tally with the way it has been described, i.e. him putting his own money in. Some clarification is needed though. In either scenario it would still be his own money. The money has been used to pay off an external lender but it's a case of whether he has put it in as as capital or loan. If it's capital then it does not form part of the debt of the club. If its a loan then it would still be shown as debt but would just be from a different lender. Sorry - don't want to get into too much bean counter speak here but there is an important distinction. I don't know about anyone else but I think it's quite scary for Chelsea that they owe Abramovich well over £400 million. Could get entertaining for the rest of us if it all goes wrong at Stamford Bridge though

I would advise some caution here. It is not at all certain that he has wiped out the debt. I said in an earlier post if he has put the money in as share capital then he has indeed wiped the debt. But it is also quite possible that he has just replaced the debt by becoming the lender himself so the debt would not be wiped. Abramovich has lent Chelsea about £400 million interest free and he is shown in their accounts as a lender. The only reason Chelsea is not hugely insolvent is because Abramovich has given guarantees that he won't call it in - and in any case calling it in would be an extremely stupid thing to do when you own the club! But if he decided to sell he will want that money back from the new owner.

How can the club owe him money? He owns the club outright. doesn't matter,a private individual gave money to a business.he is running it as a business therefore he will want the money back at some point. He'll want a return on his investment I should think but the club doesn't 'owe' him money. He owns the club so it's really a case of him no longer owing the banks the money the club was in debt. I'm not just being pedantic, there's a big difference. The scenario you give could happen if, for example, someone on the board loaned the club money when it was a PLC. In this case the club doesn't owe anyone anything (more or less) any more. My take on it is that he bought the club with the debt, now the club is free of debt its worth £75m more (or however much he's paid off) pushing the clubs worth over the £200m mark. I agree, the club don't owe him money, its like saying Chelsea owe Roman money, if so they are well and truly fuked. It depends whether he put the money in as share capital or not. If he did then the club doesn't owe him the money. If he didn't put it in as share capital then it will be in there as a loan from the owner and if anyone buys the club then that money forms part of the debts. Plenty of businesses are financed by loans from the person or persons who own them.

I think it's 2010.

Is that a tent in Sam's shorts or is he pleased with the squad

It was Fredricks negotation skills that signed him. Souness wanted Boa Morte iirc - but the club wouldn't meet Fulham's valuation. I am not a Souness supporter (are there any?) but I am not convinced that he had much to do with Luque joining us.

A totally honest interview tbh. Confirms quite a few things that many of us suspected.

I can't speak for Inter but we've hardly ever seen his attacking skills tbh. I remember a great game he played for us against Reading last season but mostly he tries hard but creates little.

This

Isn't Rozy left footed?

Trust him with what exactly? I guess that the original post is aimed at asking whether we believe his motives are ahem "honourable" as far as our club is concerned. Maybe. He'll make sure the club is run in a professional and business like manner. Mort is a good pro but at the end of the day he's is just that. Its a business investment. Ashley will face the decisions that every businessman faces on what level to invest to maximise the value of his asset. Very unlikely that the answer will be zero tbh. He will strike a balance based on his own judgement and I think we've seen that policy so far - sensible buying and selling resulting in a far better squad (in my opinion). If anyone thinks Ashley has suddenly become a passionate Geordie who is prepared to take the club on a mad and unplanned spending spree in the vague hope of success - then I would disagree. And if anyone thinks Chris Mort is anything other than an extremely competent and professional business administrator - well I think not. From my perception there's far more positives than negatives in all that though, And if the rumours are true and Ashley takes a business decision and decides that the time is right to sell - as long as the new owners commit to the good work that has been done and don't try and reinvent everything then we'll be fine.

Flexibilty is the key and Sam has got a number of players who can slot into different roles so that 4-4-2 and 4-4-3 are easily possible. Posts above have set out how we might line up in both those formations. Assuming Belletti joins us I could also see this line up with 3 central defenders and wing backs: Cacapa Taylor Rosenal Belletti Enrique Geremi Barton Emre Owen Smith Depending on form/fitness/African Cup you have also got Faye, Butt, Zoggy,Milner, Viduka, Martins, Ameobi who can slot in to the above or turn it into a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3. Plus players like Smith and Geremi can play in a number of different positions if necessary. The options in our squad are numerous and will give plenty of scope to alter tactics to suit the situation.

He's a corporate animal. Plays the PR game pretty well but he will pull the dagger when it has to be done. So we got early doors stuff like keeping Shepherd on "for continuity" and also public words to the effect that the most important thing was that Freddy recovers from his illness. Yet when the time was right Shepherd senior and junior were despatched without ceremony - and tbh thats the way the corporate world works. And tbh thats the way it has to be if the club is to move on. It's a massive business and I have no problem with that.

Anyone know why this phrase became the in thing to say this summer? Is it pop at new board to say they have only spent this? Is it to highlight Sam as wheeler dealer? Why don't people not talk about total spent anymore? It is the best measure of how much the club has actually invested in the squad. It takes account of the fact that funds were received for departing players (good sums for both Parker and Dyer imo) and is therefore relevant to the point made in the opening post. Its been a good summer's business so far is the point. No pop intended at any board tbh.

And all for a net spend of well under £10 million

I don't think so. There were some grumblings early in the window about the new board not moving quickly enough, but that was all. Yes that was all he said. The press then proceeded to write a load of stuff about there being tension between Sam and Mort/Ashley. It was never reflected by anything they said though. Funny how that all seems to have gone quiet now.... blueyes.gif

Luque can also play left wing - which might be useful at some point in the season. I guess the key thing is whether Luque wants to return to the land of Sangria and San Miguel or whether he wants to have another go over here under some more enlightened management. If he really wants out then its best to let him go tbh.

He was including Alan Smith I think, which isn't great news for Luque or Carroll Fair enough - I'd got Smith down as a midfielder who could play up front (like Dyer) but Smith has probably spent more of his career playing up front than any other position.

Sam said recently that he was happy with his "5 strikers". So that's Owen, Martins, Viduka, Ameobi - but who does he see as being was the fifth? Carroll or Luque? Both have been the subject of loan speculation.

Yup - know the feeling. Will the sick note come back and bit your arse?

Didn't he do the deal to buy the club overnight or something? Not a chance, have you seen Mort's CV? The guy is a top class M&A advisor, there is absolutely no way he would have advised Ashely to spend £133m without getting access to the books and being able to ascertain the debt position of the business. Given that it was an all cash deal, there wouldn't have been the pressure from a bank to get DD done but it would be truly amazing if he hadn't ascertained what the enterprise value of the business was before purchasing it. In that case, then, I summise that this entire story is a load of bollocks and not worth worrying about. I'm guessing that they've seen SA is slow in the transfer market, which leads to speculation about his relationship with MA, which is followed by problems at Sports Direct, which then leads people to the next natural assumption, that all is not sweetness and light at the club. Which incidentally also fires off those "Martins for sale" stories. A series of baseless assumptions. Although it's hard to see how any detailed due diligence could have taken place without the knowledge of the Shepherd clan. Fred claims he genuinely didn't know about Ashley's interest until his brother came to see him in hospital and told him the Halls had sold. It is almost impossible to keep proper due diligence a secret from the staff and directors of a business.

Do we need one of the greatest predatory goal scorers ever in our squad even though he might pick up a groin or thigh strain every now and then and even though he may get a "dead leg" in a Toon training session just before he declares himself fit for an England game ? Er yes - when we've got a squad to handle that sort of crap - and we are getting to a point where we can imho.

Could it be Mort blowing the whistle on stuff he has found during his "review of the business"??