Hughesy

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way). I'll never ever get the Ashley line about not knowing about the repayment of the debt to fund the stadium. Change of control provision is included in pretty much every loan agreement - even if you did no due diligence at all, you would expect there to be one. In any event, it's relatively common to speak to a bank and ask them to continue to provide the loan.

It is meaningless in accrual accounting sense. Not sure what your point is here - we have a guaranteed income that is due at various stages over the season. It makes perfect sense to borrow against guaranteed income streams. The income is unearned. Guaranteed future income in accrual accounting sense is not in the book yet. You are basically spending before receiving in accrual accounting sense. Even if Ashley showing "ambition", how about next year? Cut back spending or continue to spend the next year revenue? On top of that, I assume it's 3% interest cost per annum, so it's close to 3m interest cost. Not sure why the accounting treatment is particularly important to be honest. It's quite common to borrow against future income. As for future years, you continue to borrow against that particular year's money. You're going to receive it, so there's no reason not to spend some of it. Given the situation we are in where we absolutely have to stay up this season, now is not the time to not spend.

Thing is though - it doesn't really make sense from a business perspective. Lots of businesses have uneven income streams over the course of a year, but will still require funds to carry out day to day tasks which they will invariably need to borrow. Of course, but the ideal scenario is that you always have enough free cash to do whatever you want without having to borrow any more. We're seemingly trying to run that model at all times but the current context is completely unsuitable for it. This isn't meant to be patronising and apologies if I've misunderstood, but I'm not sure I know of many companies (if any) (including FTSE 100 companies) that won't borrow money. Debt isn't an issue - in many ways, with debt as cheap as it is, it's a sensible business decision.

It would probably be cheaper to get out a loan for the debt that is owed to Ashley, pay interest on it and then get Ashley to actually pay market value for the free advertising.

A. charney quoted in annual account that the loss of central distributed revenue after relegation is 30m. I believe the so called central distributed revenue includes prize money, tv broadcast revenue and parachute payment. Bit odd if it's not the case. B. We just receive it once as we promoted back immediately. No more 40m this summer. I don't wish to appear pedantic, however ,90 million more than offsets 40 million like That's future revenue which is unearned in accounting sense, I guarantee you won't see this 90m in next account, if you mean the EPL TV broadcast rights income. Whether this amount is spendable is judgemental - but the cash has not yet received so if the club has to spend it NOW it has to be FINANCED by Ashley own money. Practically speaking, Ashley has to sell his shares to generate 90M cash and provide to Rafa, interest free, and he can only get it back 1 year later. It is complicated, probably, to those who don't know accounting and financing. It doesn't need to be financed by Ashley - the club will no doubt have a revolving credit facility that it can draw funds under to finance ongoing business costs or the club could securitise the guaranteed sums and spend the cash now.

Thing is though - it doesn't really make sense from a business perspective. Lots of businesses have uneven income streams over the course of a year, but will still require funds to carry out day to day tasks which they will invariably need to borrow.

It is meaningless in accrual accounting sense. Not sure what your point is here - we have a guaranteed income that is due at various stages over the season. It makes perfect sense to borrow against guaranteed income streams.

Absolutely no reason whatsoever why we can't spend the tv money that is guaranteed to us. Complete and utter horseshit that it somehow needs to be in our bank account before spending it.

yeah - I didn't see a problem with Hayden's performance at all.

That Everton team is slow.

From my Dennis Wise scouting, this guy looks quite decent. At that price, I think he'd be worth a punt ourselves.

I've always said I don't think he's that good. Not a massive fan of him in a midfield two as I don't think he's fit or mobile enough.

The guy isn't good enough to get away with that kind of crap.

Spot on. Embarrassing reading here today.

Which in itself is worrying. Or encouraging on the basis that we haven't allowed them to play well?

Really not sure what people expecting. Spurs have been the best team in the league over the last seasons and they created fuck all in the first half. Could easily have come away with a point but for Shelvey's idiocy.

The f***? A scissor tackle from behind is often going to result in injury. Standing on someone's ankle isn't close to as dangerous.

Kane's tackle on Lejeune is more of a red than the Shelvey 'stamp' and Ritchie's tackle.

Think we're doing great so far. They've had a lot of the ball but mainly in harmless areas.

Yes, in the form of an interest free £120m loan that is never being paid back. In that case, it'd be cheaper to borrow the money from the bank. Interest payments would be far lower than not receiving the value of the advertising.

Yep - de Boer isn't nearly as good as people were making out.

For me, it's the desire to only spend what we currently have in the bank. Ashley and co seem to regard this as great business sense, but it's fucking brainless. If you have a guaranteed income stream (which we have), you don't literally need to wait for the money to hit your account to spend it.

Not in any way excusing the lack of business done so far, but I am wondering whether Ashley and co think it's worth waiting until the end of the window to see if you can pick up some players from top 6 where the selling club subsidises the player's wages. Probably quite likely that we will have to do the same to offload our crap.

The local player getting more hatred is such nonsense.

He's quite good, isn't he?