quayside

But then we are back to whether SJP would be the sort of collateral a bank could accept and FWIW I can see any number of reasons why it might not be.

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge). And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium.

Total £69.77m Where do we stand now? £111m at 0% interest secured against Mike Ashley. £20m overdraft ? Something like that. And just for clarification I was only trying to make the point that the stadium was not used as collateral - there will be no old board v new board crap from me this afternoon

It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on? The club have an effective freehold on the land and as I said earlier their interest is worth more than the Council's. If you were to get a mortgage on a flat or an apartment you wouldn't need to get permission off the holding company who owns the land. Risk is of course taken into account (for example the club going bust), however if the club ceased to exist and no pheonix co was forthcoming the ground would not just remain a white elephant in the middle of a city centre. It would then unlock the potential redevelopment - and given this is in an area which is attracting significant leisure investment (hotels) and office development which I think has prime Newcastle rents it would be very attractive for the bank to posession of. So, if it is such an attractive piece of collateral, why did the previous board not borrow against the stadium? Do we definately know that they didn't? I don't know what they loaned money on. Perhaps they didn't need to in that particular lending market? All I'm saying is that NUFC owning a long leasehold (effective freehold) on the land should be no obstacle to the ground being mortgaged. The previous board borrowed money secured on just about every asset and income source the club had - but never against the stadium. Why? Surely if they don't own the land that the stadium is built on, then the stadium on its own is worthless from the point of view of collateral. The land is the real asset. The stadium is only valuable to a football club. 1) They do own the land through an effective freehold 2) There is a significant investment value to a football stadium. If as an invester you purchased the stadium, leased it back to the club on a fixed term basis then you control the revenue that stadium brings in. That is not worthless! The council has the right to dictate what purpose the land is used for. How risky is that for a lender? Just for info here is a list of loans the club had at the end of the previous board's reign: - £42.5 million at 7.65% interest secured on future season ticket and hospitality income - £13.1 million at 8.55% interest secured on future sponsorship income - £4.5 million at interest of LIBOR +2.25% secured on the first team training ground - £8 million at11.72% interest secured on future broadcasting income - £1.5 million secured as a second charge on the training ground

It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on? The club have an effective freehold on the land and as I said earlier their interest is worth more than the Council's. If you were to get a mortgage on a flat or an apartment you wouldn't need to get permission off the holding company who owns the land. Risk is of course taken into account (for example the club going bust), however if the club ceased to exist and no pheonix co was forthcoming the ground would not just remain a white elephant in the middle of a city centre. It would then unlock the potential redevelopment - and given this is in an area which is attracting significant leisure investment (hotels) and office development which I think has prime Newcastle rents it would be very attractive for the bank to posession of. So, if it is such an attractive piece of collateral, why did the previous board not borrow against the stadium? Do we definately know that they didn't? I don't know what they loaned money on. Perhaps they didn't need to in that particular lending market? All I'm saying is that NUFC owning a long leasehold (effective freehold) on the land should be no obstacle to the ground being mortgaged. The previous board borrowed money secured on just about every asset and income source the club had - but never against the stadium. Why? Surely if they don't own the land that the stadium is built on, then the stadium on its own is worthless from the point of view of collateral. The land is the real asset. The stadium is only valuable to a football club. Thats what I think is the reality, and why the bank would not lend against it.

It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on? The club have an effective freehold on the land and as I said earlier their interest is worth more than the Council's. If you were to get a mortgage on a flat or an apartment you wouldn't need to get permission off the holding company who owns the land. Risk is of course taken into account (for example the club going bust), however if the club ceased to exist and no pheonix co was forthcoming the ground would not just remain a white elephant in the middle of a city centre. It would then unlock the potential redevelopment - and given this is in an area which is attracting significant leisure investment (hotels) and office development which I think has prime Newcastle rents it would be very attractive for the bank to posession of. So, if it is such an attractive piece of collateral, why did the previous board not borrow against the stadium? Do we definately know that they didn't? I don't know what they loaned money on. Perhaps they didn't need to in that particular lending market? All I'm saying is that NUFC owning a long leasehold (effective freehold) on the land should be no obstacle to the ground being mortgaged. The previous board borrowed money secured on just about every asset and income source the club had - but never against the stadium. Why?

It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on? The club have an effective freehold on the land and as I said earlier their interest is worth more than the Council's. If you were to get a mortgage on a flat or an apartment you wouldn't need to get permission off the holding company who owns the land. Risk is of course taken into account (for example the club going bust), however if the club ceased to exist and no pheonix co was forthcoming the ground would not just remain a white elephant in the middle of a city centre. It would then unlock the potential redevelopment - and given this is in an area which is attracting significant leisure investment (hotels) and office development which I think has prime Newcastle rents it would be very attractive for the bank to posession of. So, if it is such an attractive piece of collateral, why did the previous board not borrow against the stadium?

It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on?

Gimp - Don't know for sure (especially the shops and warehouse) since the properties aren't listed in the accounts but you are probably about right.

It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP.

It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP.

I've got to hand it to Ashley he has a truly unique way of handling the media and PR in general. It's really bizarre. At this time of year newspapers will speculate, it fills up the pages when there is no football being played and everyone knows most of it is bollox. Despite his high profile he is a very private and secretive man and his record of (not) giving interviews is testament to that. I can only assume that the reason he is so arsed about the press is that his hatred of having his business dealings made public has reached a paranoiac level.

I just don't believe these rumours about big clubs chasing Taylor. He's simply not good enough. I think his agent is trying to tout him round. Pretty much this. He is a decent Premiership right back imo.

Know what you mean but it's not a big deal imo. The Mail used to write crap about us when it wasn't banned, but at least we can now officially ignore it.....

I fail to see what Jenas did wrong. He had the very good sense to see Souness was a useless c*** and the Toon where well set on a rocky road to nowhere and bailed out. The goldfish bowl jibes where said by Souness not Jenas. I don't know if you were there when we played Spurs in March 2006, we won 3-1 and JJ played for Spurs. He missed what might be the ultimate open goal - which was v funny. But IMO the reception he got from our fans throughout the whole match was worse than I've heard for any of our other ex players returning to SJP. He's perceived as not having the heart to play for us. That's what he'd have to overcome. A few decent performances would sort it for a while but there might not be a lot of tolerance from some if he suffers a loss of form.

Probably true but Sky punted the rumour and we need things to talk about at this time of year....

Considering N'zogbia was viewed as a complete pain in the arse by more than one Newcastle regime I'd be surprised if we looked for a sell on clause, but I'd be shocked if Wigan would have even considered letting us have one.

Well yes but Nolan is, in theory, a box to box midfielder and in his heyday at Bolton he did get up and down the pitch pretty well. These days he doesn't do that and I think his goal threat will diminish next season so he won't give us much at all. Which is why I think JJ who at least has some energy will offer us more doing the box to box job next season.

Not a fan of Nolan in the premiership but Smith would be much, MUCH higher on my goodbyes list. I picked out Nolan because he is supposedly the same type of player as Jenas and it would be like for like in what they offer (in theory). Smith is a holding midfielder and yes I would like him gone but replaced by a beast of a defensive midfielder.

If there is any truth in this then one of our current central mids is on his way. I would like to think it would be Nolan, who did a vital job in hitting the net last season but little else, and he won't get that space to score his goals in the Premiership. Jenas will have a job to get the fans on his side but he is a proper box to box midfielder with legs and an engine and he will do more for us next season than Nolan imo.

Don't forget that those accounts are consolidated in the NUFC accounts, which means the holding company is insolvent in itself, but NUFC Ltd is not. There is no guarantee from Ashley in the NUFC accounts and the auditors are perfectly happy to sign them off without anything to say. Ive not seen the holdings accounts so take your word that is not the case in those and that a guarantee is in place. You've lost me there - can you explain? The NUFC balance sheet shows an insolvent position of £58 million as at 30th June 2009, and Ashley's commitment is specifically referred to on page 11 (under the heading Fundamental Accounting concept). Because of that commitment the NUFC accounts were prepared on a going concern basis and the auditors signed off on that. That note on page 11 is just an explanation of how the directors have come to the conclusion that it is a going concern, it is not a guarantee. The auditors are not concerned either otherwise they would have highlighted it in the audit report. Ok try this - imagine you were the auditor. The balance sheet shows a heavily insolvent position, and the company's survival relies on the owner not pulling the plug and continuing to support it. Plus a commitment from Ashley to support the club for the next 12 months is NOT forthcoming. The directors have prepared the accounts on a going concern basis. You need to audit those accounts. Question - would you have given a clean audit report with no qualification or emphasis of matter?

The creation of St James was necessary because Ashley needed to create a vehicle to do the Newcastle transaction in the first place. That is normal. Why MASH is being created is anybody's guess, maybe Ashley wants to build an empire of investments of this type and lump them all under one umbrella, only he (or his advisors) would know. The Newcastle United companies were in existence in that structure when Ashley bought the club as far as I can see. Edit: can't see it having any impact on overdrafts as the bank would look at its overall exposure to the Group. Cheers. Could Ashley in essence make Sports Direct buy NUFC and lumber half of the problem on the shareholders? Matt is absolutely right in his post above. MASH do own Ashley's shares in Sports Direct as well as being the ultimate owner of Newcastle United. Ashley has been buying up Sports Direct shares since the value fell post flotation (the subscribing investors and the other shareholders just love him). He owned about 75% the last info I had. So he could pretty much get Sports Direct to do whatever he likes.....

Villa (Milner, Beye), Spurs (Bassong), Man City (Given), Fulham (Duff) should be ok. Wigan (N'zogbia) - could see Whelan spinning that one out to piss Ashley off

You know this or are you speculating?

The creation of St James was necessary because Ashley needed to create a vehicle to do the Newcastle transaction in the first place. That is normal. Why MASH is being created is anybody's guess, maybe Ashley wants to build an empire of investments of this type and lump them all under one umbrella, only he (or his advisors) would know. The Newcastle United companies were in existence in that structure when Ashley bought the club as far as I can see. Edit: can't see it having any impact on overdrafts as the bank would look at its overall exposure to the Group.