fredbob

If he's worth the reported £800 million and £240 million is tied to the club and he's also got a substantial financial interest in SD then I think his actual liquid assets are going to be relatively small. Oh I know that, but fading star doesnt, I was just asking how he'd of done things, assuming as he does that theres £600m sitting in his bank account.

According to the accounts he loaned the club £100 million then added another £10 million. So on top of the £110m he's pumped into the club - how much should he provide in terms of transfer funds, hypothetically spekaing of course? (Assuming of course that he does have £600m just sitting in his bank account)

I couldnt give a s*** if LLLO was the head of the IMF. This isnt a question of debit and credit columns, its a question of strategy. Unbeleivable. So you're saying he should of left the 3rd party debt alone, and then invested £100m into the first team? No. Im saying restructuring the debt was the absolute minimum requirement, and that Ashley has milked the I saved the club thing to death. So on top of the £100m he's pumped into the club - how much should he provide in terms of transfer funds, hypothetically spekaing of course? (Assuming of course that he does have £600m just sitting in his bank account)

Ive never understood why Jenas gets so much grief as a player, ive always liked him as a player, athletic, tidy player with a good range of passing, chips in with the odd goals as well.

I couldn’t give a shit if LLLO was the head of the IMF. This isn’t a question of debit and credit columns, it’s a question of strategy. Unbeleivable. So you're saying he should of left the 3rd party debt alone, and then invested £100m into the first team?

I was wrong. Why change the habit of lifetime From having all the answers to having nothing but shitty one liners in ten minutes. When in Rome. Talk s**** about finance? No, throw petty one liners around rather than attempt to engage in debate. Theres no debate here fading star, none whatsoever.

Meanwhile back in reality... That was reality. "Was" being the operative word. Do you regret having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile? It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium. Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future? Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion. If we go down I would of still wanted to seen Shearer, Ginola, Sir Les, SBR & host of others & of course the ground being expaned the good memories will live ever. Sticking my fingers in my ears?!? A lot of people get into SJP because some of that debt was used to rebuild the ground which worked out very expensive, of course we could of built a cheap stadia in Gateshead with few grants but I am glad we paid extra & stayed in the city centre as seeing SJP at the top the city is still a brilliant thing to see. I think you're generalising the debt a bit too much. As Mick#s pointing out, i think the damage was done with the Souness splurges, the big wages the decreased parachute payments and the lack of CL money. Its all added up, i dont htink the stadium debt was as big an issue as it had been secured against season ticket sales (which explains some PR stunts pre season ticket renewals) which are very consistent. Once we got ourselves into a position where we had high wages, low performers and no CL there was no way to go, we couldnt even recoup much money of player sales. With SBR we did have high wages but we also had higher parachute payemtns and the CL campaign money. We'd also borrowed against our assets and the money was goona be difficult to raise. What parachute payments? They are the payments FL clubs get when they go down. Sorry, i meant the payments you get depending on the place you finish. My bad, not that is was a major point. Chill out on yourself I was only asking

Meanwhile back in reality... That was reality. "Was" being the operative word. Do you regret having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile? It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium. Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future? Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion. If we go down I would of still wanted to seen Shearer, Ginola, Sir Les, SBR & host of others & of course the ground being expaned the good memories will live ever. Sticking my fingers in my ears?!? A lot of people get into SJP because some of that debt was used to rebuild the ground which worked out very expensive, of course we could of built a cheap stadia in Gateshead with few grants but I am glad we paid extra & stayed in the city centre as seeing SJP at the top the city is still a brilliant thing to see. I think you're generalising the debt a bit too much. As Mick#s pointing out, i think the damage was done with the Souness splurges, the big wages the decreased parachute payments and the lack of CL money. Its all added up, i dont htink the stadium debt was as big an issue as it had been secured against season ticket sales (which explains some PR stunts pre season ticket renewals) which are very consistent. Once we got ourselves into a position where we had high wages, low performers and no CL there was no way to go, we couldnt even recoup much money of player sales. With SBR we did have high wages but we also had higher parachute payemtns and the CL campaign money. We'd also borrowed against our assets and the money was goona be difficult to raise. What parachute payments? They are the payments FL clubs get when they go down. Sorry, i meant the payments you get depending on the place you finish. My bad, not that is was a major point.

How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?! Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest. They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True. They said that the debts had been paid off. True. All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy. The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that. The debts haven’t been paid off they’ve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over. Do you suggest he shouldn't have put the money in to save that being the case then? Idiot. I’m not suggesting anything. NUFC does owe more money now than it did when the new owner took over. I’m sorry if the facts intrude on your childishly naïve Ashley fantasy but it’s important to establish the facts. How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it? Bump He could have invested £100m in his business, instead of lending it the money with an option to charge interest. If he’s as committed to club as he says why go for the loan option? Cheers, you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. explain yourself cockbrain Ok. Presumably you're talking about him making an equity investment by issuing more shares in the company rather than doing it via a loan(I know I've lost you already) If he did that he'd be exposing himself to massive risk if it all went wrong as in the event of a winding up shareholders are bottom of the list of beneficiaries when whatever is left is dished out. By funding the company via a loan he has in part protected his investment at no cost to himself, because as a creditor rather than an equity investor he falls further up the food chain. Your point about setting the agreement up as a loan just so he has the ability to charge interest is utterly stupid as he could just as easily extract dividends as the sole shareholder in the company, without giving the club any tax benefit, which they would get on the interest payments, but wouldn't get on dividend extraction. Now run along. Take that, bitch.

Meanwhile back in reality... That was reality. "Was" being the operative word. Do you regret having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile? It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium. Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future? Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion. If we go down I would of still wanted to seen Shearer, Ginola, Sir Les, SBR & host of others & of course the ground being expaned the good memories will live ever. Sticking my fingers in my ears?!? A lot of people get into SJP because some of that debt was used to rebuild the ground which worked out very expensive, of course we could of built a cheap stadia in Gateshead with few grants but I am glad we paid extra & stayed in the city centre as seeing SJP at the top the city is still a brilliant thing to see. I think you're generalising the debt a bit too much. As Mick#s pointing out, i think the damage was done with the Souness splurges, the big wages the decreased parachute payments and the lack of CL money. Its all added up, i dont htink the stadium debt was as big an issue as it had been secured against season ticket sales (which explains some PR stunts pre season ticket renewals) which are very consistent. Once we got ourselves into a position where we had high wages, low performers and no CL there was no way to go, we couldnt even recoup much money of player sales. With SBR we did have high wages but we also had higher parachute payemtns and the CL campaign money. We'd also borrowed against our assets and the money was goona be difficult to raise.

Meanwhile back in reality... That was reality. "Was" being the operative word. Do you regret having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile? It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium. Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future? Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion.

Liverpool is under thread of that exact scenario. They are, to the tune of £500m I believe. Do you expect LFC to go out of business? Of course no-one expects Liverpool to go out of business (even if many find the prospect quite delicious, but that's besides the point)...but then again, it remains entirely possible. What makes you think it's so completely inconceivable? Do the words...Lehman Brothers...Barings...mean anything to you? Not as a collective but i imagine he's familiar with them as individual words.

Meanwhile back in reality... That was reality. "Was" being the operative word.

Meanwhile back in reality...

The possibilities are there - a Jack Walker/Steve Gibson type philanthropic injection for one. Many people sort of expected that of Ashley including me to some extent - of course you could argue it from an investment pov rather than pure philanthropy as well. If you buy a run down house you will put money into it with a view to a later return. Gibson is a guarantor to the tune of £60m (?), walker is the only truly philanthropic owner that i can think of in the the prem.

nothing to do with the fact that there are more "other clubs"? :lol:

My concern isn't about the "present" as it were in him calling it in - I just feel uneasy about it being used as a bargaining chip as part of a future sale. I know I'm being irrational to an extent which is why if there is something like a good tax reason for it I'd be happy to hear it. What scenarios do you envisage being a problem? This is why I admit to being irrational - I'm not clear in my own mind how it could be used but my mistrust of the man makes me believe there must be a way. Say a consortium of NE businesses expressed an interest but were unwilling to pay the full asking price. However there was considerable public backing for the bid which went beyond mafia banners. Ashley decides to take say £150m for the club to save the hassle but keeps the loan. That could then become a millstone around the clubs neck. Whereas if as mentioned above the loan did not exist any leeway in the price negotiations would be completely free from complications. To be clear I recognise that at present it is better for the club that it owes money to Ashley rather than the bank - I'm just not completely worry free. That fair enough, i personally do trust the man, and do think he's got the clubs interest at heart, i personally hope that he gets us into a situation where the club IS able to pay the money back and back itself in the market, as well that would be a fanstastic achievement. I dont think its an unrealistic hope either, all he needs is one good managerial appointment that could acutally be the whole key to the entire future of this club.

My concern isn't about the "present" as it were in him calling it in - I just feel uneasy about it being used as a bargaining chip as part of a future sale. I know I'm being irrational to an extent which is why if there is something like a good tax reason for it I'd be happy to hear it. What scenarios do you envisage being a problem?

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free. Well, then Im stumped, i dont see what you're critical point is then? By the same logic Roman deserve slander not credit. It's not even as "bad" as the loans Abramovich has made to Chelsea due to what the money has been used for. Abramovich's loans have funded the purchase of players, many of whom have been signed for fees that were greatly over the odds and will never be recouped (see: Shaun Wright-Philips, Andriy Shevchenko, Hernán Crespo, etc). Those players are also on hugely inflated wages, which makes it even more difficult for Chelsea to move them on to other clubs if they become surplus to requirements. Essentially, the money has been spent on intangible assets and the majority of it is unrecoverable under any circumstances. If Abramovich called in those loans Chelsea would be totally fucked. Ashley's loan has been to pay off debt owed to external agencies, who were charging interest regardless of whether the club was making a profit and could have recalled the loan at a point in time damaging to the club. If Ashley called in the loan, we'd be pretty fucked, but no worse than we already were, in fact we'd have benefited from not having to pay interest on the loans for however long it was between Ashley paying off the original loans and demanding repayment on the loan to him. Precisely, i perosnally cant look past the notion that this "debt" is still a burden to the club if its owed the the person who owns the club in the first place. Its about as secure as it can get. If you're worried about the "debt" you're kind of implying that theres a danger that Ashley could call it in at any time and screw us over, even if he charged interest on the loan, hes not gonna do it if we cant afford it. Its just a ridiculous notion.

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free. Well, then Im stumped, i dont see what you're critical point is then? By the same logic Roman deserve slander not credit. There are two reasons why I highlight it - one "petty" and one which worries me. Firstly it shows the lack of clarity - we've heard the phrase "don't owe a penny to anyone" thrown about and general confusion over things like the outstanding transfer fees - I see it as another communication failure. Again, I always understood it as transfer fees not being classfied as debt. Secondly unless an accountant can give me a good reason for it to be a loan I don't "trust" why it exists. I don't think the price he wants is a good enough reason to justify it being on the books. If he had truly paid the debt off ie as a "gift" then he could still demand his £250m with the simple explanation of getting his money back which most people accept. I worry that he could change the terms of the loan "on a whim" as part of any proposed deal. I admit to not being sure what he could do but simply mistrust him short of good reasons for its presence. This is a good point but how may businesses with revenue of £100m are sold for £250m? I dont see how this has anything to do with the way nufc is run though, this is just business, in very much the same way that previous regimes have paid out huge dividends depsite poor performances. Its exactly what Roman is doing, once Chelsea become self sufficcient. Abrmahmovich spent £60m to buy Chelsea, and plunged £600m into the club, do you think he should sell the club for £660m then? thats essentially what you're saying in order to prove his legimtimacy as a person and owner.

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free. Well, then Im stumped, i dont see what you're critical point is then? By the same logic Roman deserve slander not credit. If the asset belongs to you, and that asset owes you money then is it classifiable as debt in the same way as owing an asset and that asset owing money to someone else? If that makes sense.

When I was a contractor and director of a ltd company there was a completely legitimate notion of "the company" and the "director" ie me personally. NUFC and Mike Ashley are not the same entity. So at the end of the day you dont acknowledge the debt repayment made from Ashley to the financiers as legitimate?

How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?! Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest. They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True. They said that the debts had been paid off. True. All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the shit at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy. The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply fucking ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that. Spot on. Couldnt agree more. Delicious post.

We made a brilliant appointment too in Bobby Robson, and any opinion you have other than that, is also a heap of shite. And expecting the club to make such brilliant appointments every time, is also unrealistic shit. For people like you who spout such garbage, we will see who Villa appoint when he goes, and who Arsenal appoint when Wenger goes, and who ManU appoint when Ferguson goes. I think you're losing it here, its perfectly relasitic to expect the board to make good appointments, its unrealisitc to expect them to work out everytime. Prime example being Dlaglish (where only the moinority will criticise his appointment), his record stood up, he was a good appointment. Are you saying that its unrealsiitc to pick a good manager from the entire world? How come Liverpool managed it? The way you see it, is that when people say its easy to make a good appointment (which it is), you think we mean its easy to make an appointment who will do great for the club, its not what we mean. Look at Spurs - Ramos was a fanstastic appointment, but i imaigine you see it as a shit appointment becasue it didnt work out, which isnt how you should judge a persons decison making process. It can only be done on the merit of the appoimtnet. your last paragraph shows you are actually starting to grasp something, now adopt that principle to the fortunes of NUFC, not that I would say qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 over a period of a decade is a disaster or anything ......... Absolutley, pretty much everything up to 2004 was great, aside from the intefereing and undermining of SBR (and not backing him at THE most crucuial time) the sacking was a terrible mistake in my opinion (but a canvas of opinion at the time would firmly put me in the miority), the appointment of Souness was possibly one of the worst decisions Ive ever seen made at a club of this stature at the time, the decision to back him with so much money was the second worst decision. This is what a lot of people are trying to tell you, they had the foresight at the time to say this was a shit appointment , there can be no argument here, it wasnt a good appointment by any stretch of the imagination. And it happens to be a decision we're still paying for now. The scope to make a good appointment was definitely there, unlike Liverpool we were unwilling to see what the foreign shores had to offer, what happened to ambition then? It was possilby the best time in NUFC history to make a world class appointment and we failed miserably. Shepherd et al were pretty much untouchable up to that point. Its a sad state of affiars but once a mistake is made the past is largely forgotten, what good is a past if you have a grim future? I'll always be immensely grateful for some of the best times ive ever seen at nufc, but i wont excuse any bad decision which has cost the club so much. It just doesnt work like that. canny post, but the bold is totally wrong. Most people backed him all the way, his buys, his sales, and encouraged the fat bastard to give him even more money insisting that doing it like Alex Ferguson in kicking out the "cancers" was going to yield the same results. They will now be mostly the same people who are complaining the club spent too much money, applying mandiarse type expert hindsight. Fair enough! I admit it myself, i supported the appointment even though i disagreed with it monumentally. That still doesnt mean to say that the decision to appoint him was justifiable, it was still a poor decision, what compunded that decision was the next 2 appointments. As a fan i can only support whats put in front of me like any fan should. As for the money spent, maybe people are beng harsh with it, maybe with the benefit of hindsight with the current predicamanet they can finally see the full implications of the decision to back Graeme Souness with such a huge amount of money. Theres also the infamous Anelka/Owen, Luque/Boa Morte contraversies which are still clear as mud.