quayside

I really hadn''t thought that there had been any reduction in any of the sums owed to Ashley in the published info. But I'll have a look at the accounts tomorrow and get back with an answer. In the OP. Was the 138m included in NUFC's own balance sheet? No, 'Gross debt' but its the reductions in this debt that caused me to post this. Who is paying down this debt, from which sources and why? If its club money, then its not a LBO but not far away in principle. Same as Quayside, I dislike the presentation of the OP because it's very misleading. I trust/hope you aren't intentionally do so. So, the first question is, the 138m, what does that mean? It should be the price Ashley paid to the former owners and this is irrelevant to NUFC's own financial statement. It should be the price "paid by Ashley" rather than "owe to Ashley". So to say this is the money the club "owe to Ashley" is wrong, even though this figure does represent a bottom line for Ashley to sell the club for breakeven. And the second question is, how does the amount get decreased? I am not sure but in accounting sense, the club cannot just pay out cash to its owner unless it's through drawings or dividends. The latter is impossible since the club is keep on making a loss. So my bet would be on drawings. But why? The 138m figure is not in balance sheet so I couldn't get it. Where do you get the figure and how do you know it's 132m later? Mind to show your source again? Apologize if you've already uploaded it somewhere. The only scenario that makes your worries come true is the owner, in the name of SJH, did make a drawing of 6m and thus the 138m figure becomes 132m, which is still the bottom line for Ashley to break even. In fact nothing has changed - because by doing so the club's value gone downwards by 6m as well and this won't help him much to get a higher selling price. Whether Ashley can draw out 140m is really questionable - and I doubt whether the club has 140m net assets as well. Quayside, I am not familiar with UK accounting, but is drawings like this allowed in UK GAAP? Give me until tomorrow and I'll have a look at what happened and get back.

Yes I remember Rambler's article. He wrote a good piece on the club finances but personally I didn't like his presentaton of some of the info.

Spot on. Probably not even 10 mins required. So there's little or no chance Ashley overlooked it? It would be impossible to overlook if you looked at the loan documentation in the first place. One of the first things a finance lawyer would do in a due diligence exercise would be to look for exactly that kind of provision. It would be beyond negligent for a lawyer not to look for a change of control clause or not pick up on it because it can obviously make a huge difference to any acquisition and the funding required. But if Ashley didn't do any DD, as we are led to believe, and didn't get lawyers to look at the loan documents - then it is conceivable that he wouldn't have known about it. However, nearly every loan document in the world has some form of change of control clause in it.. However (apologies for labouring this point), I find it very strange that Ashley would actually buy NUFC without doing any DD at all. It's a very very risky and strange way to do business. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/mort-brings-sea-change-to-tone-of-business-on-the-tyne-460911.html In that case - I have no idea how Ashley could not have known about the change of control clause. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I think by "typical due diligence one would do on a public takeover" he means they read the published 2006 accounts. Can't say I agree on that - in my experience, DD would definitely have been done on the loan agreements that the club had outstanding. I think either Mort is bending the truth and no 'proper' DD was done (although I am sure that Freshfields would have recommended that it was done) or 'proper' DD was done and Ashley knew about the change of control. If anyone undertakes due diligence on a public company the Stock Exchange must be notified and the fact it is happening made public. No such notification was made about Ashley. Also I remember Shepherd being shocked to learn that the Halls had sold, if due diligence had been taking place he'd have known all about it.

I think Carr fulfils this role only not in name. Pardew will have some imput but I imagine it would be minimal. I don't think Carr does that job. He's a scout whose job is to put together a list of possible signings, Pardew would then discuss them with Carr, maybe have a look at the ones he doesn't know and then put names forward to Llambias in order of preference. Imo it is at this stage that the real problem lies. I don't think DL is competent or experienced enough to do this job properly. he's obviously ok at bringing in free transfers, activating release clauses and acquiring players generally discarded by their club, basically anything easy. looks like negotiations aren't his strong point though. for an ambitious owner, the above might be a problem worth fixing. Totally agree. Replacing Llambias with someone who knows what he's doing would cure most of the sh*t that goes on at the club imo.

Not so. Our debt has doubled since June 2007. We are better off financially simply because of who we owe the debt to not because of the amount of the debt. See Everton for a current example of what I'm getting at. So, by your definition, what is the club's debt position atm? The 2010 accounts show that the club owed Ashley £140 million. Right now I would guess (and it really is a guess) it's less than that.

Spot on. Probably not even 10 mins required. So there's little or no chance Ashley overlooked it? It would be impossible to overlook if you looked at the loan documentation in the first place. One of the first things a finance lawyer would do in a due diligence exercise would be to look for exactly that kind of provision. It would be beyond negligent for a lawyer not to look for a change of control clause or not pick up on it because it can obviously make a huge difference to any acquisition and the funding required. But if Ashley didn't do any DD, as we are led to believe, and didn't get lawyers to look at the loan documents - then it is conceivable that he wouldn't have known about it. However, nearly every loan document in the world has some form of change of control clause in it.. However (apologies for labouring this point), I find it very strange that Ashley would actually buy NUFC without doing any DD at all. It's a very very risky and strange way to do business. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/mort-brings-sea-change-to-tone-of-business-on-the-tyne-460911.html In that case - I have no idea how Ashley could not have known about the change of control clause. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I think by "typical due diligence one would do on a public takeover" he means they read the published 2006 accounts.

I really hadn''t thought that there had been any reduction in any of the sums owed to Ashley in the published info. But I'll have a look at the accounts tomorrow and get back with an answer. In the OP. I saw the OP but the bit about debt reducing doesn't ring any bells with me so I will check it out. Also fwiw I don't like the way the table in the OP presents gross debt including the cost of the club, especially as it appears to refer to St James Holdings in 2005 and 2006 when the company did not exist.

This just confirms my view that he's in with all the tricks, lies and bull. It also fits in with Golfmag's assertion about keeping down the wage bill. Lots of lovely jubbly bonus money which can be used to pay off a few debts. Allegedly. The one bit of Golfmag's prophecy that I struggle with is the bit about AP keeping wages down. Football club owners aren't going to let a manager loose with a free hand on their money. Does anyone think Ashley lets AP negotiate transfer fees and wages? I can well believe that DL is charged with getting wages down but not Pardew.

That is a very good balanced article by Edwards. I think Pardew has been let down.

I think Carr fulfils this role only not in name. Pardew will have some imput but I imagine it would be minimal. I don't think Carr does that job. He's a scout whose job is to put together a list of possible signings, Pardew would then discuss them with Carr, maybe have a look at the ones he doesn't know and then put names forward to Llambias in order of preference. Imo it is at this stage that the real problem lies. I don't think DL is competent or experienced enough to do this job properly.

Are we in less debt now then we were before Genius? He has slowed/lowered the overall running costs, but its to the detriment of the playing side imo. We are in more debt now, and he has lowered the running costs but I'm not at all sure our squad immediately pre Ashley (.i.e. end of the 2006/2007 season) was better than what we have now.

Not so. Our debt has doubled since June 2007. We are better off financially simply because of who we owe the debt to not because of the amount of the debt. See Everton for a current example of what I'm getting at.

I really hadn''t thought that there had been any reduction in any of the sums owed to Ashley in the published info. But I'll have a look at the accounts tomorrow and get back with an answer.

Don't know if that was in response to my post but the £138 million he paid was for the club and thus all it's assets and liabilities. I would say that what people think he is owed morally is a debate that could take a long time but the fact is, at the last count, he was out of pocket by a total of £278 million.

There was no leveraged buyout of Newcastle. Ashley set up a company called St James Holdings and has put his own money into it to fund what he has done at Newcastle. The only way it would be a leveraged buyout is if he had borrowed the money to put into St James Holdings, he hasn't done that as he's used his own cash. Based on the latest information Ashley has put about £278 million into St James Holdings. £138 million of that was used to buy the club and the remaining £140 million or so has been used to fund this loan that everyone has heard of. So the club owes Ashley £140 million, it does not owe Ashley £278 million. However purely from an accounting viewpoint St James Holdings is showing that it owes Ashley the full £278 million, but I stress that does not mean the club does. If the club was sold tomorrow Ashley has no legal right to receive anything other than the £140 million loan. Of course he won't sell under those terms and will be looking to get a value that clears the purchase price and the debt .i.e. more than £278 million at the last count. That's a fairly simple view of the situation as it was the last time we had sight of any finances. However there are a number of other factors to take into account. Since that information was published the debt the club owes to Ashley may well have decreased with some of the Carroll money being used for that purpose. I'm not going to say it definitely has because I genuinely don't know if it has, but it's certainly a distinct possibility. Secondly there is a point that has been raised on here about Ashley at some point in the future being in a position where he owns the club but the debt has been paid off. The sums involved are as I said above. To clear the debt he needed total repayment of £140 million as at June 2010, if he wanted to also recover the purchase price of the club then he would need to find a way of taking money out to a value of a further £138 million. This would have to be done by charging interest on the loan, paying dividends, renting an asset to the club or taking a salary - he hasn't done any of those so far. I have to say if he's looking to get £278 million out of the club's cash flow to cover the loan and the purchase price then it might take some time...

Helicopters are pretty fast you know. Can they travel back in time, a medical takes hours. We don't need to do a medical right now. Think I heard that deals can't go ahead without one. or something like that. Yes it's to do with the club's player insurance policy.

Pieters is a left back who can also play central. That one obviously fell through but we are clearly after someone who can play both roles, and it makes sense. Pity Ridgewell is a bit average but so were Griffin, O'Brien and Hughes and they all did a job for us.

30 years old. Mike Ashley no touch. If he's heading for the north east by train maybe he's on his way to Brucey. Via Newcastle Yes - that's the way you get to Sunderland by train from London.

30 years old. Mike Ashley no touch. If he's heading for the north east by train maybe he's on his way to Brucey.

I'd rather not see articles about Tiote that even mention him leaving tbh.

Sounds like he hasn't been smiling at Pards....

F*ck me, haven't seen positivity like this on here for a while

Good news. But I sincerely hope this doesn't break down once personal terms are discussed. You'd like to think we've got some notion that Santon will fit into our wage structure. Need another central defefender, we've only got 3 recognised players who can play there I think.

Agree - 117 pages and counting.

He's clearly a player who can work at this level. He already has a Premiership hat trick to his name, scored an important goal against the Arse last season and he's picked off a couple of goals to get us another 3 points today. He cost less than £2 million but clubs (including us) have paid a lot more for a lot less.