Ashley pays off further £45m of debt, Mort says club could well have folded

[jimmymag]

The silence on this topic from NE5 and HTL is deafening.

 

Yes still no sign of the chuckle brothers yet.

 

They are too busy setting the forum straight on whether we need defenders or not in another thread.

 

I'm amazed they haven't noticed this one.

 

I'm not, but I'm taking their silence as an admission that they can't defend the fat one any longer.

[Mick]

 

I'm not, but I'm taking their silence as an admission that they can't defend the fat one any longer.

 

You couldn't be more wrong http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=45654.msg1026292#msg1026292 

[jimmymag]

 

I'm not, but I'm taking their silence as an admission that they can't defend the fat one any longer.

 

You couldn't be more wrong http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=45654.msg1026292#msg1026292 

 

Well I'll just take their continued defending of the fat one to confirm that they are indeed totally deluded.

[NSG]

Sounds like a load of shit, tbh.

 

This.

[2sheds]

Still no word from Laurel and Hardy yet regarding this disgraceful situation the previous board left?

[Baggio]

Shepherd blasts Mort

 

Sep 30 2007

 

Sunday Sun

 

 

FORMER Newcastle chairman Freddy Shepherd last night hit back at successor Chris Mort’s claim that he left the club close to “folding like a pack of cards”.

 

Mort declared United were in “big trouble” under Shepherd and would have gone under but for a re-financing deal done just before Mike Ashley bought the club.

 

The new chairman also complained that the situation he inherited was complicated by the fact that sponsorship money from the likes of Northern Rock and adidas had already been spent.

 

But Shepherd has dismissed Mort’s claims, insisting the Magpies’ debt – amid overall liabilities of around £150 million at the end of 2006 – was always within control.

 

“The debt was always structured and manageable,” a source close to Shepherd said last night.

 

 

Story continues Continue story

ADVERTISEMENT

 

“Much of it was part of a securitization loan for stadium redevelopment, which is something common to most top clubs.

 

“Money was borrowed against future revenue streams. In other words, the debts were payable and the business solvent.

 

“It was not about to fold like a pack of cards.”

 

 

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/tm_headline=shepherd-blasts-mort%26method=full%26objectid=19869925%26siteid=50081-name_page.html

[Dave]

So Shepherd didn't hit back at all then.

[Mick]

So Shepherd didn't hit back at all then.

 

Typical shite from Thompson House, an unnamed journalist quoting an unnamed source.     

[gray]

haha fantastic that. Work experience got hold of the publishing machine at ronny towers

[ChezGiven]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

[gray]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

 

perhaps because they can make the payments?

[ChezGiven]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

 

perhaps because they can make the payments?

 

 

Re-financing loans means Liverpool cant afford the re-payments or want smaller ones. As we hadnt actually done that yet, does that mean we wouldnt have been allowed? Or that wasnt an option? Or whether it was needed at all?

[gray]

I reckon Carol Vordeman had been round and turned us down for a debtbuster tbh

[madras]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

 

perhaps because they can make the payments?

 

 

Re-financing loans means Liverpool cant afford the re-payments or want smaller ones. As we hadnt actually done that yet, does that mean we wouldnt have been allowed? Or that wasnt an option? Or whether it was needed at all?

isn't everyone constantly tring to re-finance their loans for better deals ?

[ChezGiven]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

 

perhaps because they can make the payments?

 

 

Re-financing loans means Liverpool cant afford the re-payments or want smaller ones. As we hadnt actually done that yet, does that mean we wouldnt have been allowed? Or that wasnt an option? Or whether it was needed at all?

isn't everyone constantly tring to re-finance their loans for better deals ?

Would that mean everyone is a 'house of cards' financially? We had a figure of £80m over the summer, now there is a figure of £150m, neither of which are anywhere near the size of the top 4. Then again our revenue isnt either but its all proportional.

[madras]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

 

perhaps because they can make the payments?

 

 

Re-financing loans means Liverpool cant afford the re-payments or want smaller ones. As we hadnt actually done that yet, does that mean we wouldnt have been allowed? Or that wasnt an option? Or whether it was needed at all?

isn't everyone constantly tring to re-finance their loans for better deals ?

Would that mean everyone is a 'house of cards' financially? We had a figure of £80m over the summer, now there is a figure of £150m, neither of which are anywhere near the size of the top 4. Then again our revenue isnt either but its all proportional.

not if you can afford the present repayments

[ChezGiven]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

 

perhaps because they can make the payments?

 

 

Re-financing loans means Liverpool cant afford the re-payments or want smaller ones. As we hadnt actually done that yet, does that mean we wouldnt have been allowed? Or that wasnt an option? Or whether it was needed at all?

isn't everyone constantly tring to re-finance their loans for better deals ?

Would that mean everyone is a 'house of cards' financially? We had a figure of £80m over the summer, now there is a figure of £150m, neither of which are anywhere near the size of the top 4. Then again our revenue isnt either but its all proportional.

not if you can afford the present repayments

Why are Liverpool re-financing then? And why couldnt we do the same, we have lower revenues but also had lower debt?

[madras]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

 

perhaps because they can make the payments?

 

 

Re-financing loans means Liverpool cant afford the re-payments or want smaller ones. As we hadnt actually done that yet, does that mean we wouldnt have been allowed? Or that wasnt an option? Or whether it was needed at all?

isn't everyone constantly tring to re-finance their loans for better deals ?

Would that mean everyone is a 'house of cards' financially? We had a figure of £80m over the summer, now there is a figure of £150m, neither of which are anywhere near the size of the top 4. Then again our revenue isnt either but its all proportional.

not if you can afford the present repayments

Why are Liverpool re-financing then? And why couldnt we do the same, we have lower revenues but also had lower debt?

so they can get a better deal or want to borrow more.

 

we could do the same,we have done several times but like getting a mortgage or re-mortgaging you may be tied in as part of the contract of the deal or other lenders may think you are too much of a risk.

[Mick]

Would that mean everyone is a 'house of cards' financially? We had a figure of £80m over the summer, now there is a figure of £150m, neither of which are anywhere near the size of the top 4. Then again our revenue isnt either but its all proportional.

 

I think the £150 million and £80 million are different types of debt, I remember going over our last set of published accounts and £80 million was loans, the rest was running costs and players transfers although that is from memory and I'm not going looking through them again, I seem to remember having an argument with somebody on here about the size of our debt and I mentioned that it was heading towards £200 million but can't remember exact details.

[ChezGiven]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

 

perhaps because they can make the payments?

 

 

Re-financing loans means Liverpool cant afford the re-payments or want smaller ones. As we hadnt actually done that yet, does that mean we wouldnt have been allowed? Or that wasnt an option? Or whether it was needed at all?

isn't everyone constantly tring to re-finance their loans for better deals ?

Would that mean everyone is a 'house of cards' financially? We had a figure of £80m over the summer, now there is a figure of £150m, neither of which are anywhere near the size of the top 4. Then again our revenue isnt either but its all proportional.

not if you can afford the present repayments

Why are Liverpool re-financing then? And why couldnt we do the same, we have lower revenues but also had lower debt?

so they can get a better deal or want to borrow more.

 

we could do the same,we have done several times but like getting a mortgage or re-mortgaging you may be tied in as part of the contract of the deal or other lenders may think you are too much of a risk.

 

We have not re-financed the stadium expansion loan as far as i am aware. 

 

You're just making assumptions anyway, the facts are that our debt is lower than any of the top 4.

 

Its yet to demonstrated to me how these situations are different. Saying 'we cant afford the re-payments' is daft too.

[madras]

I'd say that given the levels of debt that Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool have, the comments from Mort were pure PR.

 

There are two threads on here that discuss Liverpool re-financing their loans (why would they be doing that and is that a house of cards?) and Arsenal paying off their debt in 20- 23 years time.

 

How come their debt is different?

 

perhaps because they can make the payments?

 

 

Re-financing loans means Liverpool cant afford the re-payments or want smaller ones. As we hadnt actually done that yet, does that mean we wouldnt have been allowed? Or that wasnt an option? Or whether it was needed at all?

isn't everyone constantly tring to re-finance their loans for better deals ?

Would that mean everyone is a 'house of cards' financially? We had a figure of £80m over the summer, now there is a figure of £150m, neither of which are anywhere near the size of the top 4. Then again our revenue isnt either but its all proportional.

not if you can afford the present repayments

Why are Liverpool re-financing then? And why couldnt we do the same, we have lower revenues but also had lower debt?

so they can get a better deal or want to borrow more.

 

we could do the same,we have done several times but like getting a mortgage or re-mortgaging you may be tied in as part of the contract of the deal or other lenders may think you are too much of a risk.

 

We have not re-financed the stadium expansion loan as far as i am aware. 

 

You're just making assumptions anyway, the facts are that our debt is lower than any of the top 4.

 

Its yet to demonstrated to me how these situations are different. Saying 'we cant afford the re-payments' is daft too.

i didn't measn specifically the stadium loan but other aspects of our debt have been re-financed

[ChezGiven]

Would that mean everyone is a 'house of cards' financially? We had a figure of £80m over the summer, now there is a figure of £150m, neither of which are anywhere near the size of the top 4. Then again our revenue isnt either but its all proportional.

 

I think the £150 million and £80 million are different types of debt, I remember going over our last set of published accounts and £80 million was loans, the rest was running costs and players transfers although that is from memory and I'm not going looking through them again, I seem to remember having an argument with somebody on here about the size of our debt and I mentioned that it was heading towards £200 million but can't remember exact details.

 

Would it astound you to know that my company makes around £8bn profit a year yet carries enormous debts?

 

Debt is often a much better way to raise finance than equity (the latter being our approach when we floated).

 

This is all just supposition, the cold facts are that the debt situation was comparable to other clubs in proportion to respective revenues.

[Mick]

 

Would it astound you to know that my company makes around £8bn profit a year yet carries enormous debts?

 

Debt is often a much better way to raise finance than equity (the latter being our approach when we floated).

 

This is all just supposition, the cold facts are that the debt situation was comparable to other clubs in proportion to respective revenues.

 

I'm sure you've mentioned those figures before, why do you carry so much debt while making those profits?  I can only guess that the profits are used in a way which is thought to bring in more value than the servicing of the debt.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

 

Would it astound you to know that my company makes around £8bn profit a year yet carries enormous debts?

 

Debt is often a much better way to raise finance than equity (the latter being our approach when we floated).

 

This is all just supposition, the cold facts are that the debt situation was comparable to other clubs in proportion to respective revenues.

 

I'm sure you've mentioned those figures before, why do you carry so much debt while making those profits?  I can only guess that the profits are used in a way which is thought to bring in more value than the servicing of the debt.

 

Up to a certain point (varies obviously from company to company) debt is always cheaper than equity regardless of profits (I won't bore you with the theory).

 

Also, its often preferable to borrow to finance than reinvest profits - (a) profits don't equal cash so the cash may not be redily available for investing, (b) at £8bn profit the risk to a bank for Chez's company is low so interest rates are likely to be lower than achievable on long term deposits

[macbeth]

The NUFC issue would undoubtedly be the ability to pay the short term debt.

 

The mortgage on the stadium was always a ring-fenced figure with first call at all times. The payments are roughly £4.5m per year, with conclusion in 2016.

 

The shorter term debt has just gone up ridiculously over the last few years. From having cash in the bank 4 years ago, we went to having a £20m overdraft. This £20m plus its interest needs constant attention. As the club slid to having monthly losses of over £1.5m the ability to cover the overdraft repayments would become far harder. Add inthe drop in revenue, the using up of future sponsorship money and you have a real problem.

 

The abuility to re-finance, or borrow more became impossible. The club worth dropped from £56m in 1998 to £7m in January 2007. With the £1.5m per month losses the club had no nett assets by the end of the season, nothing to put up as a guarantee against any other borrowings.

 

Ashley had covered these