quayside

Gary Megson.

Some of today's observations from The Big Sam "A big bag of Cadbury Mini Eggs and a corking mystery novel. Big Sam 1 - 0 Unemployment Blues." "Big Sam grabs life by the cock shaft and squeezes every last ounce of possiblity out of its urethral opening. I just live it bloody large." "For anyone wondering what mystery novel I'm reading, it's actually one of my own. 'The Winter of the Croaking Frog'. A belter of a read."

No The club assigned existing debts to Ashley, the Carroll debt was not existing at 30th April 2010.

Extract from the MASH accounts: "£126 million of the loans due in one year relate to a development overdraft facility used to finance the construction of the hotel next to the stadium in Newcastle. The facility agreement includes an option for the Group, once the development, has been completed, to convert the overdraft facility to an 18 year term loan. The directors intend to exercise that option such that this amount will actually be payable over 18 years, not within one year " If it was just a facility the money would not be a loan.

I think Routledge was released because Pardew and/or the club thought it was nailed on that Larsson would come to us because Bentley was going to Birmingham. A cock up really....

Looking at the previous years accounts the MGM project was a joint venture between the club and MGM and the club bought out MGM's share of the venture in January 2008.

I think he bought the existing building...its currently being worked on now. That would make sense, it has to be something that is now being worked on because £126m has already been borrowed to finance the construction.

Before the end of March.

No. Turnover is another word for income, wage bill is a cost.

The club accounts for 2010 are not yet available but the first accounts of MASH Holdings Ltd have been filed. MASH is Ashley’s ultimate holding company and seems to have all his business interests included .i.e. his 71% holding in Sports Direct, his 100% of the football club and his various brands. Because of all the different businesses that are included in these accounts they are quite complex, they also cover a slightly different time frame to the club accounts as they cover a period ending 30th April 2010. However the following information can be extracted: - Club turnover was down by 39%, which would mean that we went from £86m in 2009 to about £52m in 2010, so the drop in income due to relegation was £34m. - The club’s loss before exceptional items and amortisation was increased by 84%, this would mean it went to £22m. There was a profit on selling players of £15m and amortisation of £13m. Assuming nothing else much happened (.e.g. exceptional items) the club would have lost £20m overall I think. - Ashley has a facility to borrow £126m to build a hotel next to St James Park. This seems to be being done through a subsidiary company called MGM Grand Newcastle Ltd, a company of which Llambias is a director. I’ve got the MGM accounts for 2009 and they show that it owns a long leasehold on land adjacent to SJP for which it paid £2.5m, and the company is “considering development opportunities”. - Ashley’s loan stands at £139m although he also advanced a further £13m to the club against future revenues from player sales, so the club assigned the debt on the revenues to Ashley. - There is still weird stuff going on with the cash flows on buying and selling players. The cash flow shows that the club received £44m from transfers and shelled out £14.5m. Seeing as the period covered included the transfer window immediately post relegation and the January 2010 window neither of those figures seem to me to relate to the actual business done in the period, so it looks as though there is still deferral of payments both in and out. The different time frames may give slightly different results to the club accounts and, of course, the club accounts will give more information (such as wage costs) but the MASH accounts give us a bit of a preview of what to expect. Edit: Correction to the comment above about the loan to build the hotel. It is not just a facility, Ashley has actually borrowed £126m to finance the construction.

He will only have 1 year of his contract left this summer so, if he does go, I doubt the transfer fee will be anything special.

Why bother? All it suggests to me is that Dalglish is hunting bargain buys or has a pathetic obsession with players we are chasing similar to Steve Bruce. KIlgallon? How did that one work out Brucie? Forgot about him. Is Kilgallon still on Sunderland's books? He had a decent run for about a third of last season and then became a forgotten man. He's on loan at Doncaster now. Shame.

Wouldn't blame him either. I am a Barton fan, he's intelligent, articulate and I believe he's the best player in our squad - but if you have a contract until 2012 for (allegedly) 50 or 60 grand a week its not ok to stick your lip out. Whatever happens he's paid a shed load to do a job and he should get on with it. And you can factor in the fact that, in the past, he's shat on the club that paid him that money. Not that any sermon of mine will make any f*cking difference to him mind.

Why bother? All it suggests to me is that Dalglish is hunting bargain buys or has a pathetic obsession with players we are chasing similar to Steve Bruce. KIlgallon? How did that one work out Brucie? Forgot about him. Is Kilgallon still on Sunderland's books?

Very good player, very fragile temperament, very high maintenance, inclined to pick up injuries. Thank God we've got Ireland as a back up just in case....

It doesn't really matter about the intercompany debt. A price for the club will ignore this 'debt'. For various reasons a buyer may actually repay this debt, or it may be cancelled and more paid for the equity of the club, usually depending on the tax situation of the companies (I am no tax expert!). It's like me offering you £10 for your empty wallet or £70 if you leave £60 in it. The net consideration is the same. To assess if something is debt or equity you need to look at the risks and rewards- all of which in this case reside with Ashley. This is tax-efficient equity, nothing more. Forget about 'loans to Ashley'- that's like saying I owe myself a fiver. What should be in no doubt is that following any serious takeover, the club will not owe a penny to any Ashley vehicle. Equally it might owe £200-250m to a new holdco, but the same rationale applies. However you dress it up, based on the most recent information, Ashley has invested about £276 million in the club. This consists of £138m he paid for it and £138m he loaned to it. Regardless of corporate structures, new holdcos, tax efficiency etc the fact is that unless he gets £276 million out of a sale, however that sale is structured, he will have lost money out of owning the club. As I said above £200 million for the club with the debt remaining repayable = a profit for Ashley. £200 million for the club with the debt written off = a loss for Ashley. When you buy or sell a business you do so with all the assets and liabilities included, and debt (to whoever it is owed) is prima facie a liability of any business. do you think it would be put that way, not more of 'this price for the lot' type scenario ? No idea on that, it would all depend on the preference of the parties to the deal and that would probably be dictated by their respective tax positions.

You might think so given where we've been in recent times. But the reality is that none of us can really have a clue what Ashley expects.

It doesn't really matter about the intercompany debt. A price for the club will ignore this 'debt'. For various reasons a buyer may actually repay this debt, or it may be cancelled and more paid for the equity of the club, usually depending on the tax situation of the companies (I am no tax expert!). It's like me offering you £10 for your empty wallet or £70 if you leave £60 in it. The net consideration is the same. To assess if something is debt or equity you need to look at the risks and rewards- all of which in this case reside with Ashley. This is tax-efficient equity, nothing more. Forget about 'loans to Ashley'- that's like saying I owe myself a fiver. What should be in no doubt is that following any serious takeover, the club will not owe a penny to any Ashley vehicle. Equally it might owe £200-250m to a new holdco, but the same rationale applies. However you dress it up, based on the most recent information, Ashley has invested about £276 million in the club. This consists of £138m he paid for it and £138m he loaned to it. Regardless of corporate structures, new holdcos, tax efficiency etc the fact is that unless he gets £276 million out of a sale, however that sale is structured, he will have lost money out of owning the club. As I said above £200 million for the club with the debt remaining repayable = a profit for Ashley. £200 million for the club with the debt written off = a loss for Ashley. When you buy or sell a business you do so with all the assets and liabilities included, and debt (to whoever it is owed) is prima facie a liability of any business.

That's really a very small issue. It ceases to exist. Does it? There were rumours that he was prepared to write the debt off when the Moat deal was in the air. But even if that were true then, the situation is different now - so you are saying that Mike is prepared to write off £138 million of debt (at the last count) in order to get the club sold? And is approximately half of what he has invested really just a small issue? That depends on what he sells the club for, the numbers being talked about are £200m+ Of course they're just rumours, but that's all we've got to go on. Agree we are discussing nothing other than rumour here. But if the price of £200 million is to buy the club and the debt remains repayable then Ashley makes a profit of £62 million. If the total price is £200 million and the debt is written off then, based on the last reported figures, Ashley makes a loss off at least £76 million. So I was just making the point that the treatment of the debt is fundamental.

That's really a very small issue. It ceases to exist. Does it? There were rumours that he was prepared to write the debt off when the Moat deal was in the air. But even if that were true then, the situation is different now - so you are saying that Mike is prepared to write off £138 million of debt (at the last count) in order to get the club sold? And is approximately half of what he has invested really just a small issue?

I think the club has always been for sale, it's simply a case of someone offering the right price. The biggest issue is what happens to the much discussed Ashley debt. Anil clearly has some wealth behind him and he's a fan, which is fine. He also survived an assassination attempt which is decent experience for any Toon owner . But, whether its him or someone else who comes in, nothing guarantees that a new owner won't start out trying to "do it his way" and we end up watching catastrophic decisions being made all over again. Judging from some of the owners who have pitched up in the Premier League in recent years Ashley isn't the only tit out there. But at least he's got some years of experience now and hard though it may be to believe, we could easily end up with someone worse.

Interesting interview. I've been told by knowledgeable posters on this forum that Tiote was a Keegan/Hughton find and Carr had nothing to do with the transfer. Carr clearly thinks otherwise....

Not surprised with Blackburn being bottom. At this rate they have a good chance going down and won't be able to sign the Ronaldinhos and the Riquelmes. They'll even struggle to hold on to their current Samba star. ...and four of the teams with worse form are below you already - Blackburn, Blackpool, Stoke and Wigan. Beat Wolves (who are still 7 points behind you) at home in a couple of games time and I just can't see you going down. Can see where you're coming from but hey its a strange league and this season has been weirder than usual.

Pardew is benefitting from the team Hughton has put together. Personally think Hughton is a mediocre manager at best with his overly cautious approach, and that he sort of stumbled into a good thing with the midfield of Jonas/Nolan/Tiote/Barton somehow gelling into a quality unit for a newly promoted side, but even so we shouldn't overlook how fortunate we've been to again start the season on paper looking like we'd struggle immensely for goals/creativity/etc with limited transfers in, but finding things to be alot better than anticipated - all thanks to Hughton. He also had the balls to stick with something that worked after temporarily stumbling upon it, which in the past previous managers have failed to do. E.g. one time when we had Zog, Emre and Solano playing directly behind a lone striker (Martins?) with two midfielders in behind holding, we looked a pretty slick team because they kept the ball well and the team was forced to pass it on the deck - it only lasted 2 games because whoever our manager was at the time (Roeder?) decided to change things as soon as a second striker was fit again and we went back to pumping long balls and bypassing the midfield. Similarly, don't think Kinnear ever tried the system that Keegan found some joy with (Owen in midifled). At least with Hughton this didn't seem to be a problem, and once he did make a change for the better he usually stuck with it. Would Pardew have put this team together if it wasn't already in place? Would he have thought about trying Barton out wide, or stuck with him there if he hadn't already established himself as an excellent deep-winger of sorts? Would he have signed Tiote, or would he have gone for a reject from his West Ham days? What will Pardew do if we have to sell a few players and he has to rebuild the team? On the one hand, I don't think there's much to criticise about Pardew at present, given our lack of squad depth. On the other, I don't think there's much to praise him for either as he's just putting a team that Hughton built/discovered out on the pitch. But given his track record, I'm certainly a bit worried that when he starts shaping this team into his own we're going to be worse off for it. That is a good post. Any discussion on results that Hughton got v Pardew's results will inevitably turn unto a pissing contest. As I've said before it is a judgement call at this stage. The comeback against the Arse was cool but so was beating them at The Emirates etc etc etc. For my money the most impressive thing AP has done was think on his feet and set the side up the way he did when we went down to 10 men against Bolton. I don't have a problem with AP working in the market when the time comes. I think the sheer ethic of getting value for money that our owner lives by will provide a check on anything daft being done And I have some faith in our ability to pick up players that will improve the squad even if not much money changes hands. If AP was going to be a step up from Hughton it was in getting results when key players are missing. He's done ok at that (we got good results without Carroll before he left and we picked up some points without Tiote) but I have to say I am slightly more concerned about where we are now and the fact that we have A LOT of key players missing. Early doors I put us down as finishing 15th, obviously if you reckon thats the end result you are going to expect some nervous moments - but lets get 42 points and think ahead then.

Obviously he 's not stupid he knew how to build a chain of downmarket sports shops and float it at a gross overvaluation, and trouser a billion in cash in the process. But his expertise in sports retail and selling his business to the City didn't stop him buying a football club without understanding anything about what he was getting into. Plenty of successful people have been arrogant enough to think they can transfer their skills into another industry only to find they were out of their depth.