quayside

Bimpy my man, it is a strange time to be having an Internet conversation but who said that? I may need an hour or two of kip before I get to read your reply....

Hurtful rumours basically

Dividends can only be paid if there are profits available for distribution in the balance sheet ("distributable reserves"). As at 30 June 2017 the club had accumulated losses of £85 million in its balance sheet and was technically insolvent. So I think "if" Ashley has taken any money out it would be to reduce the loan. The other point is that he can reduce his loan without any tax implications whereas dividends, bonuses and salary payments are all taxable. Thanks! Insane how we can accumulate such a loss when we spend fuck all. For a start two relegations played a part, for example the last one resulted in a loss of over £40 million for the year ended June 2016. Sorry edit - year ended 2017 Wasn't that the result of him handing £80m to an incompetent manager? Well I don't think anyone could argue that the appointment of the incompetent manager definitely resulted in the relegation In simple terms the financial results looked like this: 2016 2017 Income. £126m. £86m Wages (£76m) (£112m) Other costs. (£22m) (£29m) Amortisation. (£28m) (£36m) Profit on selling players. £3m £42m Overall. Profit £3m. Loss (£49m) It probably isn't worth getting in to deep into this stuff but any money spent on buying players affects the cash flow but not immediately the profit or loss. When you come to sell a player the resulting profit or loss gets taken into account (as seen above). We had a much higher wage bill in the Championship than we did in the Premiership despite the much lower income. And all this was partially offset by selling Sissoko and Wijnaldum.

Salomon Robson ffs

Dividends can only be paid if there are profits available for distribution in the balance sheet ("distributable reserves"). As at 30 June 2017 the club had accumulated losses of £85 million in its balance sheet and was technically insolvent. So I think "if" Ashley has taken any money out it would be to reduce the loan. The other point is that he can reduce his loan without any tax implications whereas dividends, bonuses and salary payments are all taxable. Thanks! Insane how we can accumulate such a loss when we spend fuck all. For a start two relegations played a part, for example the last one resulted in a loss of over £40 million for the year ended June 2016. Sorry edit - year ended 2017

Dividends can only be paid if there are profits available for distribution in the balance sheet ("distributable reserves"). As at 30 June 2017 the club had accumulated losses of £85 million in its balance sheet and was technically insolvent. So I think "if" Ashley has taken any money out it would be to reduce the loan. The other point is that he can reduce his loan without any tax implications whereas dividends, bonuses and salary payments are all taxable.

Ok - but we need time to prepare a bid...

Merson.

Absolutely.

No way.

No. The last filed accounts cover the year ended 30th June 2017, which takes in the Championship season. The next accounts to 30th June 2018 do not need to be filed until the end of March 2019.

Would want wages and shit like that.

It cannot be hidden. But if, for example, Ashley uses the tv money to repay his loan it won’t affect the stated profit at all. It will just reduce the company’s debt liability to him. I have no idea if he will do that but this is just to make the point that it can’t disappear from the accounts.

Was seriously wound up - less so now

Likewise

you're a f***ing thick c*** like. Go on, gimme a ban. In the words of the Limmy caller "well worth it mate, he's s****". He's entitled to his opinion man, no need to call anybody a "thick c***". Be nice man But it's not his opinion, he does it for bites. That is my opinion. We were f***ing garbage. How would you describe it? Ok I’ll have a go. We were totally outplayed by a team who have at least one player who cost more than our entire eleven. Let’s go with one of their non attacking options for a start - Virgil van Dijk. That transfer fee of more than £70 million would probably take us out before you even look at Salah, Firmino and Sane who collectively cost more than £100 million...What do you expect Rafa to do? We are trying to stay up and not getting humped by 4 or 5 goals against sides like this could be important. Goal difference will probably give us an edge. No one likes it but it is reality. No one queued up to tell me how much Pogba and Lukaku cost the other week. What the f*** does this even mean? Not much really - we overachieved at home against Man United. It happens now and then and credit to our team and our manager for getting 3 points. The League table does not lie however - and mostly it is about money spent sadly...

you're a f***ing thick c*** like. Go on, gimme a ban. In the words of the Limmy caller "well worth it mate, he's s****". He's entitled to his opinion man, no need to call anybody a "thick c***". Be nice man But it's not his opinion, he does it for bites. That is my opinion. We were f***ing garbage. How would you describe it? Ok I’ll have a go. We were totally outplayed by a team who have at least one player who cost more than our entire eleven. Let’s go with one of their non attacking options for a start - Virgil van Dijk. That transfer fee of more than £70 million would probably take us out before you even look at Salah, Firmino and Sane who collectively cost more than £100 million...What do you expect Rafa to do? We are trying to stay up and not getting humped by 4 or 5 goals against sides like this could be important. Goal difference will probably give us an edge. No one likes it but it is reality.

Just found out what happened to Debuchy - thought he’d retired. Scored in the Europa League about 5 minutes ago.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sir-john-hall-sold-newcastle-13187478 https://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/jan/20/newsstory.sport7 Polygon was the other interested party.

No contracted debt was hidden, it was in the accounts. The issue was that, on a change of ownership, the debt contract said that the debt could be called in. And once there was a change of ownership it was indeed called in. Barclays seized the opportunity and ran. There has been debate on here as to whether Ashley should have known that would happen. Yes he should - but I don’t think he did. Thick as mince in transactions like the one he did to buy us, no previous experience is my take on it - others disagree I know. But none of us has a fecking clue what was in his head at the time tbh. Any sane person doesn't put that much cash up to buy a sports organization without doing their due diligence. He could have easily paid that loan off and then went to any one of his preferred lenders who work with him at SD and gotten a larger loan to offset his equity some and likely gotten some decent terms as it was 2007 when i purchased the club and the world didn't fall apart yet. Only person to blame wasn't anyone but his. We were more than fine generating our own cash flow to cover that debt or replacement. Disagree with most of that. In the context of owning a football club would any sane person employ Joe Kinnear twice? I do not think Ashley did any due diligence. There was some due diligence done around that time but it was by a hedge fund who didn’t appear to like what they found. And if we were more than fine generating our own cash flow to service the debt why did Barclays get the hell out when they were earning an excellent interest rate on the debt?

No contracted debt was hidden, it was in the accounts. The issue was that, on a change of ownership, the debt contract said that the debt could be called in. And once there was a change of ownership it was indeed called in. Barclays seized the opportunity and ran. There has been debate on here as to whether Ashley should have known that would happen. Yes he should - but I don’t think he did. Thick as mince in transactions like the one he did to buy us, no previous experience is my take on it - others disagree I know. But none of us has a fecking clue what was in his head at the time tbh.

Agree. Tried to say the same thing on this thread a few pages back but did not put it as well as this. If West Ham owners are better than Ashley it is not by much, and imo not worth him risking it. A proper football club would be a different proposition....

Hadn't heard that.

I can believe anything of Ashley. A scenario whereby he will sell fits the recent events. One problem with the club going on the market as it is is that there is a debt of at least £140 million owed to Ashley in the balance sheet. That is not attractive to a potential buyer. The tactic could be to spend the bare minimum now and use any surplus cash plus the £100 million odd that comes later with the tv deal to wipe the debt. It will be a lot easier to sell with a debt free balance sheet I think. If this is the case then he is of course gambling that we will do the necessary to avoid relegation. A relegated club is worth nowhere near as much as one that is in the EPL On the other hand the explanation could be any of the other theories put up on this forum.......

Ashley ever spent 20m on a player? No. Is that the test? Ffs they are all c***s, he won't get anything better from West Ham than he did from us. If a proper football club wanted him I would get it. Not really but i really don't think the west ham ownership is worse than ours. No way Well I really don't think it is better. So I go back to my original post...