quayside

Sounds like a fantasist trying to play the big shot from those links. Someone on the Sheffield Wednesday forum called him "Walter Mitty".

so you had to go to london as you couldn't find a job but i bet you don't intend to stay there if you make a few quick bob. Ronnie Lambert rip

Matthew Upson also seems to be angling for a move so he could feature in the Villa/Everton picture.

Well, it does seem that it is taking the 'Moat Consortium' (shall we call it) quite some time to get the NUFC overdraft level agreed with the banks (what else could the delay be about?) and so from that you can speculate that the consortium does not have as much money behind it as Ashley has. And, when you consider the fact that Ashley has nowhere near enough money to run a competitive and potentially successful ('big spending', of necessity, to be successful) Premier League Club, what hope can we have for the Moat Consortium, for the future? "Rid of Ashley" might well turn out to be it's best (if not its only) plus-point! I think all you can draw from the fact that the renewal of the overdraft is taking so long is that Barclays are unwilling to give a Premiership level overdraft to a Championship club. I honestly believe that even if Ashley remains in charge Barclays will still be looking to reduce the overdraft. So says Louise Taylor. She may be right but banks will generally offer any overdraft facility providing it is adequately secured and there is a business plan in place that shows the bank is not simply funding trading losses. Moat may be unable to satisfy one or both of those requirements. To be honest the club's turnover is now probably somewhere in the region of £50 million so an overdraft requirement as large as £20 million suggests there is something not hanging together with the business plan.

This is also true - the club will find it VERY difficult to make progress if it is always beholden to the goodwill of the Bank to progress ; unless it has a wealthy owner who RUNS IT PROPERLY, then every step forward will mean another back - if the manager/coaches manage to build a decent young side, the top Prem teams will be in like a shot for the best young players and the Bank, wanting to see progress on lowering the debts, will put pressure on for sales to be made. That is the reality of life in football now, esp if you are not in the Prem ; unless the club is owned by a person who can decide whether or not sales/purchases are made, there is a great danger of becoming just another CCC club. Blaming the banks is pointless - they are NOT a charity, they are there to make money and football clubs are NOT a safe source of steady return. Only clubs like Man U(because of their position as top generators of cash in football),Man City(because of their owner's wealth), Chelsea(until Abramovitch tires of it)and Arsenal(because of their status and sensible management PLUS the fact that mega-rich people would fall over themselves to buy it if it was available) , will be sure of being able to keep their players ; even Liverpool are looking more vulnerable because of their debt.... Whisper it quietly, but even the Mackems are safer from being forced to sell any decent players they develop than is NUFC at this time - and even if Moat gets the club, UNLESS he is joined on the board by some guys with REAL money. Agree with this. Without wishing to re-enter well covered territory this highlights the problem the club was running into before Ashley arrived. All the funding was provided by external lenders, with foreclosure clauses and high interest rates. There are only limited prospects for a club of our size working on that model.

I don't have access to any info that others don't and as far as I know Barclays are simply the club's clearing bank. And as such they provide an overdraft facility. I'm not aware of any other connection.

Well, it does seem that it is taking the 'Moat Consortium' (shall we call it) quite some time to get the NUFC overdraft level agreed with the banks (what else could the delay be about?) and so from that you can speculate that the consortium does not have as much money behind it as Ashley has. And, when you consider the fact that Ashley has nowhere near enough money to run a competitive and potentially successful ('big spending', of necessity, to be successful) Premier League Club, what hope can we have for the Moat Consortium, for the future? "Rid of Ashley" might well turn out to be it's best (if not its only) plus-point! Totally agree with that.

Because he's worth less than the overdraft is for would be my thinking. But surely on paper he'd be worth more if he owned the club. But there again if the club goes tits up where do Barclays get their money if there is no one with adequate resources to guarantee it? Government bail out probably Indeed To be fair, Barclays seem to have weathered the storm a lot better than most other banks though...

Because he's worth less than the overdraft is for would be my thinking. But surely on paper he'd be worth more if he owned the club. But there again if the club goes tits up where do Barclays get their money if there is no one with adequate resources to guarantee it?

Where did you get this from? There's no way the club's worth anything like £200m+. Writing off that loan has to be part of any realistic deal surely. The key word there is realistic. I don't any more than anyone else on here but I could well believe that Ashley's insistence on recovering his loan is a key reason for there being no takers so far. I've seen nothing from any reliable source that indicates the loan is being written off. When you buy a business you inherit its assets and liabilities and the loan is simply a liability of the company. It is indeed, I put it in specifically. If Ashley is attempting to the sell the club for £100m plus £110m debt to Ashley plus any overdraft, then any and all bids have almost certainly been pure fabrications. If he is trying to sell the club for that, then he isn't seriously trying to sell it at all. (I don't believe this is the case.) The only realistic way he could sell the club for anything like £100m is if he wrote off the debt. If this is the case and if the money from player sales is going towards reducing that debt, then should a sale go through he is effectively "trousering the cash" as it is reducing his losses and is money the club will never see again. We all talking blind here because we don't know what it is costing to run the club now. The wage bill has gone down but so has the income so the club will, in all probability, still be running at a loss. Someone or something would have to fund that loss. And it isn't Barclays. So the player sales would have to provide funding. Seeing as the player sales probably don't provide immediate cash I would guess that things are still extremely tight at the club. As for Ashley's loan and writing it off in full, in part or deferring repayment I just don't know what the deal on the table is. I agree that if he wants full and quick repayment it is likely to be a deal blocker. But then again there doesn't appear to have been a rush to snap up the club at terms suitable to Ashley, what are those terms?

Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. how the f*** does he make a living out of this club then? Just thinking, does anyone think this is the general consensus amongst most fans? Surely they dont think he makes money when we sell players etc. There are definitely a decent number of fans who think Ashley personally pockets club income - season ticket sales, match day revenues, transfer fees etc. Its understandable to some extent because any trust between Ashley and the fans was blown to pieces ages ago.

Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. how the f*** does he make a living out of this club then? He doesn't - its cost him a fortune just to keep the club from going under.

Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox.

Where did you get this from? There's no way the club's worth anything like £200m+. Writing off that loan has to be part of any realistic deal surely. The key word there is realistic. I don't any more than anyone else on here but I could well believe that Ashley's insistence on recovering his loan is a key reason for there being no takers so far. I've seen nothing from any reliable source that indicates the loan is being written off. When you buy a business you inherit its assets and liabilities and the loan is simply a liability of the company.

I'm pretty sure Moat & Barclays would be able to sue the arse off of the club and Ashley if what that statement says is false. Get a f***ing grip man. Yes and why would Ashley rack up a load of fees with Seymour Pierce if he didn't want to sell ffs?

Where did you get this from?

I think its simply a financial issue. £100 million for the club plus repaying Ashley's debt of say £110 million plus funding operating losses of more millions for at least one year is not a very attractive deal to buy the football club.

Agree - asset purchases are messy as hell.

We were top of the league 2 in the early 80's into the middle of January after which we only won 2 more games until the end of the season. The club cannot afford to be complacent about being promoted. Oh and we are not top of the league, we are only in a play off spot! So the fact that we've already won half of the total games we won last season doesnt suggest we'll be in contention for promotion? We have nowhere near enough defenders - just consider what happens if we stick with our current squad and say Enrique and Taylor pick up injuries.

He's a decent left back, something we haven't had since about 2004. The left back position was unresolved for years - Olly Bernard (in his first spell at the club) was the last time we had anything like a left back. In a world where there is a shortage of left backs we are lucky to have him, but he is still not the finished article by any means.

Probably right. And then Ashley and Llambias will make (or have made) a judgement call based on the results so far as they see it. So the fact that we have had few injuries and have only 4 defenders will pass them by. They will probably decide that there are some assets in the squad with a "significant residual value" that can be realised, and will make sorting that out a priority before thinking about what we do when two of our first choice defenders do a hamstring in November.

:toke:

Tbh you're talking about him as if he was N'Zogbia when he first arrived, jonas isn't a young, inexperienced player. He's a full international with one of the top teams in the world and has already cut the mustard in Spain. We should be expecting close to the finished article with him and for all the want of the world he just does not deliver. He's ours, says he wants to stay and we aren't going to find better. All his failings on end delivery, crossing, shooting are f*cking obvious but no side we are playing can afford to ignore him - it takes two defenders to shut him down and when he can be arsed he tracks back.

In his career Smith has played more games as a striker than Nolan.

I wouldn't be surprised to see: Harper Simpson Taylor Colo Enrique Taylor Butt Nolan Jonas Smith Ameobi