quayside

A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then?

Where are you getting that number from? Someone will correct me but I'm almost certain that we made comfortable profits under Robson, and those were tempered by the enormous dividends that Shepherd and the Halls were creaming off the top, otherwise there would have been much more available. Things only went awry after the decision to give Graeme Souness £50m to blow. Well since 2006 anyway, big losses every season. I can't find figures before that. I guess when we were in the CL the return was better, yes. Edit: we made 0.6m in 2005. From memory we did ok financially in the SBR years. I don't think there were huge profits or losses but I seem to remember we were fine. As Wullie says dividends and large directors salaries hoovered up any excess.

A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago.

It could be, maybe as a vanity project for some multi billionaire. Right now as others have said the minimum price Ashley would take would appear to be about £250 million, being the purchase price plus the debt. As it stands £250 million isn't stupid money these days, there's plenty of people around who could pay that. He might get totally hacked off with it and sell at a loss, he seemed to be going down that path when Barry Moat was in the frame. On the other hand he might be looking for daft money that allows him to exit with a decent profit, a buyer would have to really want it to pay more than £250 million imo. Just to add a further point. If a buyer was looking at it and he was concerned about the finances (and not just looking for a vanity project) he might well think he could increase the clubs revenue. The points people have made on here about commercial income and Sports Direct's advertising are good ones imo.

Whatever - I was asked about financial performance and replied about financial performance.

It could be, maybe as a vanity project for some multi billionaire. Right now as others have said the minimum price Ashley would take would appear to be about £250 million, being the purchase price plus the debt. As it stands £250 million isn't stupid money these days, there's plenty of people around who could pay that. He might get totally hacked off with it and sell at a loss, he seemed to be going down that path when Barry Moat was in the frame. On the other hand he might be looking for daft money that allows him to exit with a decent profit, a buyer would have to really want it to pay more than £250 million imo.

Without doing a study on other clubs I cannot really comment on their finances or the level of their debt. You mention Man City and Chelsea as being owner financed. The last time I looked Villa and Fulham were as well. I don't know to what extent John Henry has put his hand in his pocket at Liverpool. I did have a look at Spurs who have been run brilliantly by Levy. They have £85 million of bank loans in place that seem to be secured on White Hart Lane. Financially they always make an operating profit (before player trading and amortisation) and have a strong balance sheet. They do have an overdraft facility but at the last count (2012) they had £16 million in the bank. Your question about how we would get on with bank funding is obviously difficult to answer, because I don't think we would be able to borrow £111 million as we don't have enough assets to secure it. It is also a larger sum than our annual turnover. Thats my opinion and I'd be interested if someone can offer another view. There is an issue with borrowing using St James Park as security because I believe the land on which SJP stands is not owned by the club. So season ticket sales would be the biggest security we could offer, and I can't see anyone lending hugely using that. The club seems to be able to make operating profits now (before player trading and amortisation), you would need to knock off interest payments on any funding we did get. So yes the clubs financial performance has improved. But its not really possible to answer the question because of the fundamental issue of funding. Your point about Ashley shielding us from loan exposure is spot on.

The arguement is that our debt is now manageable. What i'd be interested in knowing is what state we'd be in if our debt was still to banks/financial institutions. Has Mashley improved the financial running of the club to the extent that, comparing apples with apples, our balance sheet would we significantly improved. Because, if all he's done is make the debt attributable to himself and therefore reduce the interest payments but has not in anyway improved our means of increasing revenues i'd say his financial management hasn't been as magnificent as prothletised. He's no Daniel Levy Yes the point about the debt being manageable is partly it, and quite simply that it is owed to the owner of the club rather than a bank who could foreclose. The club lost £45 million in Shepherd's final two years so your question about what would have happened if the debt remained in the hands of a bank is an interesting one. Contrary to popular belief the bulk of the debt owed to the bank was not a mortgage on the stadium, it was secured on season ticket sales. The credit crunch was just around the corner, when banks got the sh*ts about lending money to any businesse, let alone one racking up huge losses. I also believe the squad in 2007 contained too many overrpaid underperforming players (eg Duff, Luque, Owen, Butt). After allowing Allardyce (who is another thing Ashley inherited) to carry on pretty much the same way the player buying policy changed causing a lot of pain along the way. But, until the arrival of JFK, I think that the new policy had become more efficient. I can't pretend that I know what our policy on player buying is right now, if we have one. I think there was a will to bring players in this summer but JFK cocked it up. Not everyone will agree with that. I am well aware of what Ashley has done wrong and continues to do wrong, I honestly don't think I have tried to defend that, and in fact I couldn't if I tried. This all sprang out of a fairly simple observation on here that if Ashley sells up there is no guarantee it would be to someone better. And you are correct Daniel Levy is streets ahead of our owner.

100% this. Our average league position in Ashley's tenure is lower than in the period before he took over. To suggest it isn't debatable if we have made progress is quite frankly laughable. Unfortunately our resident balance sheet fan has given up on trying to explain with arguments his opinions presented as fact. Am interested in who you are referring to and why you say that. Are you for real? I hardly ever see you post about anything other than finances. I like you as a poster, and I certainly value your contribution on those finance topics, as you are obviously knowledgeable about accounting/finance, but passing off some very subjective statements about Ashley as facts that cannot be debated has got my back up a bit. I apologise if an opinion that doesn't tally with your "objective" view of the world offends you. Am for real. Thanks for the stuff about my financial posts, but I am at the end of the day a NUFC football fan believe it or not. This is a forum for opinions and I freely admit I have punted one or two out there tonight. But no one has really knocked back anything I have said. There have been worse Premiership owners than Ashley, our previous regime had reached a point where the 2006 intake of players can hardly be described as ambitious etc. Not offended btw. I think you will find not many people agree with you on those statements, especially the second one. Look, the one thing that Ashley seems to gave sorted is not wasting huge sums of money on players without resale value, and even then, from a footballing perspective financial frugality only benefits us as supporters directly if these savings are invested more wisely in the playing squad, which they currently aren't. Other than that, I struggle to see how we are far better off than before he took over (your words) by any measure. We are worse off in terms of (average) league position, club reputation, non-TV revenue (in absolute terms, but certainly relative to our competitors) and to top it off we have a management structure and personnel that would make many Championship club blush with shame. Without doubt our current management structure is embarrassing, probably worse than that tbh. Your point about the average league position is statistically accurate. But imo we were f*cked in the summer of 2007, I have explained why elsewhere on this forum. And I have (I hope) explained my frustrations with what Ashley is doing and especially the utter rubbish that was the last transfer window. The trouble is if anyone puts anything up on here that doesn't conform to the "Ashley is Satan and anyone who doesn't agree is beyond belief " view you get trashed unfortunately. He is Satan but there are other factors.

100% this. Our average league position in Ashley's tenure is lower than in the period before he took over. To suggest it isn't debatable if we have made progress is quite frankly laughable. Unfortunately our resident balance sheet fan has given up on trying to explain with arguments his opinions presented as fact. Am interested in who you are referring to and why you say that. Are you for real? I hardly ever see you post about anything other than finances. I like you as a poster, and I certainly value your contribution on those finance topics, as you are obviously knowledgeable about accounting/finance, but passing off some very subjective statements about Ashley as facts that cannot be debated has got my back up a bit. I apologise if an opinion that doesn't tally with your "objective" view of the world offends you. Am for real. Thanks for the stuff about my financial posts, but I am at the end of the day a NUFC football fan believe it or not. This is a forum for opinions and I freely admit I have punted one or two out there tonight. But no one has really knocked back anything I have said. There have been worse Premiership owners than Ashley, our previous regime had reached a point where the 2006 intake of players can hardly be described as ambitious etc. Not offended btw.

Ashley is a fat cockney c*nt who is milking money out of this club and we were far better off under Shepherd. Feel better?

100% this. Our average league position in Ashley's tenure is lower than in the period before he took over. To suggest it isn't debatable if we have made progress is quite frankly laughable. Unfortunately our resident balance sheet fan has given up on trying to explain with arguments his opinions presented as fact. Am interested in who you are referring to and why you say that.

Shepherd's final summer transfer window (2006) our incoming players were Martins, Sibierski,Duff (legs gone), a clapped out Olivier Bernard and Giuseppe Rossi on loan who hardly ever played. I feel the need to say that Oba gave us some great moments and I liked Sib. But f*ck me where was the ambition in that lot? Are those the signings of a top 6 side? And then you might ask why we couldn't go after better signings.

I know you said £200m at the very least, but I honestly think it would need to be someone with many times more than that. Buying the club is one thing, you then have to be able to fund it to a higher level than it is now. Someone who can just about buy the club isn't what we need, it needs to be small change to them. An extreme example I know but I really shudder to think where we'd be if Ashley had sold out to Barry Moat - an enthusiastic owner no doubt but that "pieced together" finance package of his was so small time. I know that, £200m wouldn't even scratch the surface. Was just saying it's all well and good having the Ashley out campaigns, but without a buyer it's futile. It is. And there's no guarantee of someone better coming in tbh, in recent memory there have been worse owners of Premiership football clubs than Ashley. Debatable. Hicks/Gillett, the Venky chicken lot, whoever it is that owns Wolves. If you want to extend it a little further north than the Premiership there's always Rangers. I'm not saying Ashley is the worst for certain, but he is certainly a contender based on a number of quite frankly stupendously stupid decisions, such as the stadium renaming, the KK/Wise affair, the Kinnear appointment (twice) and the fact he is completely uncommunicative/has horrendous PR. I certainly wouldn't be overly worried we could be far worse off if he finally upped sticks, as I was when he bought the club. Either way, there have been worse is hardly a ringing endorsement. Don't disagree with a lot of that. I have been left p*ssed off, gobsmacked, livid etc by some of Ashley's decisions. Can't believe we are close to having a competitive squad and he had a golden opportunity to take it to the next level and screwed it up. The really annoying thing is that some of what he has done has been ok, we are certainly in a far better state than when he bought us for a start. Frustrating that he can't build on that. He either just wants to run it out to reduce his loan and then flog it - or he just doesn't get what this "football thing" is all about. Again, very debatable I give up.

I know you said £200m at the very least, but I honestly think it would need to be someone with many times more than that. Buying the club is one thing, you then have to be able to fund it to a higher level than it is now. Someone who can just about buy the club isn't what we need, it needs to be small change to them. An extreme example I know but I really shudder to think where we'd be if Ashley had sold out to Barry Moat - an enthusiastic owner no doubt but that "pieced together" finance package of his was so small time. I know that, £200m wouldn't even scratch the surface. Was just saying it's all well and good having the Ashley out campaigns, but without a buyer it's futile. It is. And there's no guarantee of someone better coming in tbh, in recent memory there have been worse owners of Premiership football clubs than Ashley. Debatable. Hicks/Gillett. Ashley is far worse than them. They still spent vast sums on players and finished 2nd in the league. And RBS once had a very high market cap and were paying decent dividends and bonuses to their staff. Seriously Neesy do some proper research on what they were doing. You could start by having a look at the sequence of events that led up to their departure. That's another thing: all the examples you have given are no longer Premiership club owners. Of the current lot, Ashley must rank amongst the worst. FFS read what I said in my original post. All of those are examples of recent Premiership owners, put a club up for sale and there's a risk that you end up with something worse.

I know you said £200m at the very least, but I honestly think it would need to be someone with many times more than that. Buying the club is one thing, you then have to be able to fund it to a higher level than it is now. Someone who can just about buy the club isn't what we need, it needs to be small change to them. An extreme example I know but I really shudder to think where we'd be if Ashley had sold out to Barry Moat - an enthusiastic owner no doubt but that "pieced together" finance package of his was so small time. I know that, £200m wouldn't even scratch the surface. Was just saying it's all well and good having the Ashley out campaigns, but without a buyer it's futile. It is. And there's no guarantee of someone better coming in tbh, in recent memory there have been worse owners of Premiership football clubs than Ashley. Debatable. Hicks/Gillett, the Venky chicken lot, whoever it is that owns Wolves. If you want to extend it a little further north than the Premiership there's always Rangers. I'm not saying Ashley is the worst for certain, but he is certainly a contender based on a number of quite frankly stupendously stupid decisions, such as the stadium renaming, the KK/Wise affair, the Kinnear appointment (twice) and the fact he is completely uncommunicative/has horrendous PR. I certainly wouldn't be overly worried we could be far worse off if he finally upped sticks, as I was when he bought the club. Either way, there have been worse is hardly a ringing endorsement. Don't disagree with a lot of that. I have been left p*ssed off, gobsmacked, livid etc by some of Ashley's decisions. Can't believe we are close to having a competitive squad and he had a golden opportunity to take it to the next level and screwed it up. The really annoying thing is that some of what he has done has been ok, we are certainly in a far better state than when he bought us for a start. Frustrating that he can't build on that. He either just wants to run it out to reduce his loan and then flog it - or he just doesn't get what this "football thing" is all about.

I know you said £200m at the very least, but I honestly think it would need to be someone with many times more than that. Buying the club is one thing, you then have to be able to fund it to a higher level than it is now. Someone who can just about buy the club isn't what we need, it needs to be small change to them. An extreme example I know but I really shudder to think where we'd be if Ashley had sold out to Barry Moat - an enthusiastic owner no doubt but that "pieced together" finance package of his was so small time. I know that, £200m wouldn't even scratch the surface. Was just saying it's all well and good having the Ashley out campaigns, but without a buyer it's futile. It is. And there's no guarantee of someone better coming in tbh, in recent memory there have been worse owners of Premiership football clubs than Ashley. Debatable. Hicks/Gillett. Ashley is far worse than them. They still spent vast sums on players and finished 2nd in the league. And RBS once had a very high market cap and were paying decent dividends and bonuses to their staff. Seriously Neesy do some proper research on what they were doing. You could start by having a look at the sequence of events that led up to their departure.

I know you said £200m at the very least, but I honestly think it would need to be someone with many times more than that. Buying the club is one thing, you then have to be able to fund it to a higher level than it is now. Someone who can just about buy the club isn't what we need, it needs to be small change to them. An extreme example I know but I really shudder to think where we'd be if Ashley had sold out to Barry Moat - an enthusiastic owner no doubt but that "pieced together" finance package of his was so small time. I know that, £200m wouldn't even scratch the surface. Was just saying it's all well and good having the Ashley out campaigns, but without a buyer it's futile. It is. And there's no guarantee of someone better coming in tbh, in recent memory there have been worse owners of Premiership football clubs than Ashley. Debatable. Hicks/Gillett, the Venky chicken lot, whoever it is that owns Wolves. If you want to extend it a little further north than the Premiership there's always Rangers.

Cisse is a hit and miss poacher imo, scores astonishing goals but also can't be relied on week in week out. Bent is also a poacher, won't score the spectacular goals but is perhaps more clinical. He is also less likely to get caught offside I think. I would have been happy to have them both as competition for that role.

I know you said £200m at the very least, but I honestly think it would need to be someone with many times more than that. Buying the club is one thing, you then have to be able to fund it to a higher level than it is now. Someone who can just about buy the club isn't what we need, it needs to be small change to them. An extreme example I know but I really shudder to think where we'd be if Ashley had sold out to Barry Moat - an enthusiastic owner no doubt but that "pieced together" finance package of his was so small time. I know that, £200m wouldn't even scratch the surface. Was just saying it's all well and good having the Ashley out campaigns, but without a buyer it's futile. It is. And there's no guarantee of someone better coming in tbh, in recent memory there have been worse owners of Premiership football clubs than Ashley.

I know you said £200m at the very least, but I honestly think it would need to be someone with many times more than that. Buying the club is one thing, you then have to be able to fund it to a higher level than it is now. Someone who can just about buy the club isn't what we need, it needs to be small change to them. An extreme example I know but I really shudder to think where we'd be if Ashley had sold out to Barry Moat - an enthusiastic owner no doubt but that "pieced together" finance package of his was so small time.

It is - but only up to 30th June 2012. Well that's all we can go on really, what is in the accounts. If he pockets all the new TV money than that's a different matter. In the accounts there is £111 million of loan that is long term - i.e due after more than one year. That has now been there for several years. As at June 2012 he had loaned the club an additional £29 million during 2011 and 2012 to buy players and meet short term cash commitments. This additional amount was short term, repayable within one year.. The accounts show he had already received £11 million back, and we can probably assume he's had the remaining £18 million back by now. He's not going to get his loan back anytime soon if that pattern continues The additional £29m from Ashley came in the 09-10 Championship season and was required because the bank wouldn't allow the club to continue to have a £36m overdraft outside the Prem. Player sales on relegation (and income from previous player sales) covered the revenue fall in the Championship season so there was practically no increase in the net debt, it merely transferred from the bank to Ashley. He certainly didn't put in any money during 2011 and 2012 to buy players. The entire debt to Ashley is in the accounts (and was pre-relegation too) as payable within one year. Whether Ashley regards the £29m as special and will stop using profits to pay off the loan once this is recouped is speculation. Unfortunately for Ashley, I think the unanticipated, forced January spend will have put paid to any plans to pay off any significant amount of the loan last year. You're certainly right though that the way he is running the club, he is going to be unable to pay off much debt anytime soon unless very little of the additional TV revenue gets spent on fees & wages for the foreseeable future, or we pull quite a few more Milners & Carrolls out of the hat. I'm not sure that qualifies for a smiley though. For reference: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Ashley Loan00100000111000139800140000129000 Overdraft55281086398735781103890343 Stadium Loan474414508900000 Other Loans17248230366067323619600 Cash at bank and in hand9309930900095150 Net debt6090869679107054150017150385130485129343Debt increase/decrease87713737542963368-19900-1142 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Overdraft55281086398735781103890343 Repayable within one year10867616752939114056123496140000129000 Repayable in the first to second years775331271030521961650000 Repayable in the second to fifth years1741033231960000 Repayable after five years28659000000 BTW Some people have said that finding out the loans were repayable on change of ownership meant Ashley had to rethink his plans and changed how he was going to run the club. Only the Stadium loan was repayable on change of ownership, which was around £45m. Ashley chose to repay the other loans, and he also chose to move to a system of paying up front for players brought in while receiving payments in instalments for players we sold (part of the reason the net debt rocketed in the first couple of years). He had the money to take on the debt, and it benefited both him and the club. It's pretty obvious he would have paid off the stadium loan regardless of any clause. What accounts are you looking at? As I type this I have in front of me the 2012 accounts of Newcastle United Limited (company number 2529667) and the disclosure of Ashley's debt is exactly as I have described it. £111 million is long term (more than one year) and £18 million is short term (less than one year). It makes me wonder about the veracity of some of the other stuff in your posts but I can't be ars*d to go into it tbh. I've spent too much time arguing about numbers on here over the years.

Embarrassingly enough I bet we'd have signed someone had Llambias been here. Douglas for a start. Sounds like Bent was virtually "a done deal" if the press are to be believed - until JFK got involved. Granted he was not an obvious fit but would have been happy to see him around our squad. Cisse is so f*cking hit and miss, a bit of competition for the poacher role could only have been good.

Yes it does and yes they should. He may have thought the bank would be delighted that he (a man of means) was taking over and they would agree to continue their support. The bank though had had enough of their exposure, thought it was Christmas, and called the whole lot in.

Given some of the characters involved with Rangers over the last couple of years, there will be plenty of unexpected surprises awaiting whoever owns the club. Certainly no more than all these debts we had which were in fact in plain sight for anyone to see. True. Although the bank calling our debt in on a change of ownership clause seems to have surprised him. It shouldn't have but he was in new territory and the right to a due diligence process was waived it seems.