quayside

Marflitt rumour has the hallmarks of a wind up. If the guy is wealthy enough to buy the club there would be some knowledge of him available - anyone got anything at all? Edit: I just re-read the piece in Sporting Life and it seems like Marflitt is just a Toon fan in NZ on a messageboard who posted in that he thought it would be sorted soon

I included it in my calculation because there has been nothing official on it - window price of £100 million for the club implies that you take everything that goes with it, and that includes the loan. Caulkin in the Times said he thought it was written off, but beyond that nothing. No reason why anyone should say anything about it tbh given confidentiality clauses and non disclusure agreements etc, but I'm certain its a crucial part of any negotiation that takes place.

I would like to see an owner or consortium of owners worth at least double that figure to have any confidence that they can afford to do the job properly.

It's a speculative thread - the numbers in my post above have a logical basis though.

We haven't got anything concrete to go on since 2008 but I think it could be something like: £100 Million asking price £110 Million loan owed to Ashley in person through St James Holdings, no substantial evidence this has been written off The £40 Million overdraft is possibly also in there either in full or in part plus: you have the possibility of incurring a trading losses of lets say £30 million in the next year. If you want it on Ashley's terms you need to be have access to somehere in the region of £280 million, that sum can be reduced by any reduction in the St James Holdings debt.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted. As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot. Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!! Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league. Regardless of whether Ashley could have borrowed 3 times the amount of his entire wealth (an "interesting"suggestion), why would he do so to fund a venture like a football club? The likes of Lerner, Abramovitch, Al Fayed have all funded their club from existing funds. The reality is that Ashley is not rich enough to own a Premiership club - so I can go along with your last sentence. Partially agree. Common sense dictates if you get into the big boys game, you need to act like a big boy (or give a passing resemblence). I don't think he ever understood the football business, but what killed him was not hiring a good team with good advisors. A General manager with a strong football background should have been the first port of call. He's always run Sports Direct with trusted mates in positions of responsibility. And he's sort of got away with it. But selliing crap to Chavs where marketing is largely based on communicating false closing down sales and fictitious discounts is a far cry from the relatively sophisticated world of Premiership football - out of his depth in every possible way.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted. As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot. Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!! Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league. Regardless of whether Ashley could have borrowed 3 times the amount of his entire wealth (an "interesting"suggestion), why would he do so to fund a venture like a football club? The likes of Lerner, Abramovitch, Al Fayed have all funded their club from existing funds. The reality is that Ashley is not rich enough to own a Premiership club - so I can go along with your last sentence.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. The only problem the club has is badly negotiated player contracts, other than that it the last club left on the shelf with massive potential. So you are not of the opinion that the club is worth f*ck all?

source ? Someone I know, his wife works at the club. Thats where I heard that he'd stopped all dealings with the club (not doing anything with regards to advertsing, getting sponsors in) and wouldn't appoint a manager, had sent half the staff home. Also told me last week she was sent home when they showed the consortium around. It's all rumour based but it would explain why the club hasn't been sold and someone else told me they'd heard the same. It is rumour but I could believe it. I've never been convinced that Ashley would just write off £110 million or whatever of debt. He's never said the debt was written off and the asking price was £100 million to buy the club, implying you take on all debt. I think his starting point is that he is prepared to lose £34 or £35million on what he paid for the club but he wants everything else back. It's going nowhere if he digs in on this imo.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings. And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive. Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt. and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went. So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere. It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted. As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot. Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well.

I wouldn't mind betting the issue of Ashley's £110 million (+) loan, and the amount of it he is expecting to recover, is causing a blockage in the negotiations.

I think his business model could have worked at a non Premiership side maybe even a first division club - where lower investment is needed, there is more time to build and learn the business, plus less expectation from the fans. You cannot in the current era try and reinvent a Premiership club using Arsenal as the model and a continental management structure - especially when that club has previously been run in a way as far removed from Arsenal as it is possible to get and no recognised Premiership manager would accept the structure.

So Shepherd's bid is public knowledge

Ah but the topic of the thread is an accountancy type topic innit Going back to the OP - he will lose money unless someone gives him £134 million for the club and repays his £110m (or whatever) debt in full. Really can't see that happening - so the answer is yes.

Hmm - the club will have tax losses that it can use against future profits. Anyone who buys the club gets those tax losses but they can only be used against profits from the same business and not generally against profits from other businesses. So in short - the tax losses can't leave the club.

Pretty sure he left last month. I'm sure I read somewhere that he was asked to come back for the pre season because they were short of backroom staff.

Yes - you are right it was March and not January. If you don't think that Moore's motivation for putting in some performances was anything to do with trying to get some match time and impress Hiddinck so be it. But I do - he was utter gash the following season on the few occasions that he got on the pitch for us. As for Viduka wherever he has played there have been question marks over his attitude and commitment. And I think he will perform next season because he wants to be in shape for the World Cup. It will be an easy matter to see whether I'm right or wrong on this tbh.

Viduka will perform next season for whoever signs him. He wants to go to the World Cup so wants games and wants to impress (reminds me of another Toon player just out of contract). Thats the way it is with these people. Viduka was excellent in his last season at Boro because he knew he was coming out of contract and needed to put himself in the shop window for a big fat contract. Our big fat manager and our big fat chairman duly offered him one. The only reason he stirred his arse at all towards the end of last season was to try and get another contract and also to show he was fit for the World Cup. Anyone remember Craig Moore? Similar situation - he was invisible and injured for ages after joining us. But when the World Cup 2006 beckoned lo and behold Moore turned up fit in January, put in some decent performances and got himself in the Aussie squad.

Liddle supports two clubs - the smogs and Charlton. Says it all really. He is an utter prick. We may look f*cking ridiculous right now and its easy to laugh, but the world will turn.... Actually he's a plastic Millwall supporter not Charlton. You are right - a mistake made whilst pissed - original post now edited

Liddle supports two clubs - the smogs and Milwall. Says it all really. He is an utter prick. We may look f*cking ridiculous right now and its easy to laugh, but the world will turn....

Born in some hospital in the Toon, we were living in Beach Road, Tynemouth at the time. Family left the north east when I was about 10, for various reasons spent a lot of time in Gosforth in my 20s - but been south for a while now.

The problem we had was that we spunked too much money on one player and so had to rely far too much on him being fit and in form - and you cannot rely on Owen, his fitness record says it all, he is a bit of a luxury player tbh. ManU do not need to build a side around him, he is an option in an already talented and varied squad, they can afford the luxury.

Word. Apart from a couple of brief spells under Souness and Keegan he was either injured or trying to get back from injury, or maybe couldn't be arsed because of where he was. We got a bad deal, he was really wrong for us - we sold the family silver to buy a player who you simply cannot build a league side around. A massive mistake - and that's it. He is a good player who, when motivated, can do a job as an option in a good squad. Painful for us all but people need to get over it.

Looked a shocking winger but a useful striker. His finish against Boro was class. As others have said he has pace and thats a commodity severely lacking in our squad. I would keep him, especially as Martins is surely going (despite what Lee Ryder says in today's Chronicle).