Ashley has failed Newcastle United.

[quayside]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

Sorry - don't know when the loan notes were first taken out or what their original value was. I only can go back as far as 2004 and they were in existence then. There was an agreed repayment schedule which would have resulted in them being paid off in 2016. But as I said the takeover triggered an early repayment.

[quayside]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

[Parky]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

 

Only because Roman has ok'd that, I think in another scenario this could still be precarious for the club.

[UV]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

 

I don't understand. What's the difference between Chelsea's situation and ours?

[Guest alex]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

 

I don't understand. What's the difference between Chelsea's situation and ours?

Think he's on about the rest of the 'big 4' rather than us.

[UV]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

 

I don't understand. What's the difference between Chelsea's situation and ours?

Think he's on about the rest of the 'big 4' rather than us.

 

As I see it he's saying Chelsea have a £500 million debt which is owed to Abramovich as he has been spending his own money on the club, whereas we have zero debt because Ashley paid it off with his own money, rather than we have a £75m debt owed to Ashley.

 

It may be just a technicality, or it may be significant in some way. That's what I don't understand.

[ChezGiven]

Our debt situation was fine, it was triggered by the buy-out and thats what Ashley couldnt see before buying, hence the surprise. Maybe no one wanted to tell him (halls wanted to sell so didnt want to highlight a deal breaker, shepherd didnt want to sell and didnt want them forewarned if they got their hands on the club).

 

The other bits and losses would have been sorted once the 30m extra per year TV money kicks in. Other clubs will gain this too but the likes of pompey and blackburn have much lower revenue bases already, meaning that the ground capacity would have continued to deliver a financial advantage over most clubs.

[quayside]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

 

Only because Roman has ok'd that, I think in another scenario this could still be precarious for the club.

 

Roman has financed it that way so that if he ever decides to sell he will get the vast majority of his money back no matter what valuation is put on Chelsea Limited. The Chelsea debt is interest free and requires 18 months notice of repayment.  So yes it certainly has its risks - the main one being Roman himself. But if he did call the debt in it would put Chelsea into a potential insolvency and he'd have a big risk of not getting all his loan back.

[quayside]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

 

I don't understand. What's the difference between Chelsea's situation and ours?

Think he's on about the rest of the 'big 4' rather than us.

 

As I see it he's saying Chelsea have a £500 million debt which is owed to Abramovich as he has been spending his own money on the club, whereas we have zero debt because Ashley paid it off with his own money, rather than we have a £75m debt owed to Ashley.

 

It may be just a technicality, or it may be significant in some way. That's what I don't understand.

 

I was talking about Chelsea compared to the rest of the top 4 as Alex said.

 

As far as we are concerned Ashley put in £75 million but I don't know if it went in as a loan or as equity because it happened after the 2007 year end and the exact details aren't in the latest accounts.

[UV]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

 

I don't understand. What's the difference between Chelsea's situation and ours?

Think he's on about the rest of the 'big 4' rather than us.

 

As I see it he's saying Chelsea have a £500 million debt which is owed to Abramovich as he has been spending his own money on the club, whereas we have zero debt because Ashley paid it off with his own money, rather than we have a £75m debt owed to Ashley.

 

It may be just a technicality, or it may be significant in some way. That's what I don't understand.

 

I was talking about Chelsea compared to the rest of the top 4 as Alex said.

 

As far as we are concerned Ashley put in £75 million but I don't know if it went in as a loan or as equity because it happened after the 2007 year end and the exact details aren't in the latest accounts.

 

Interesting. I'd guess he probably did the same as Abramovich. So actually when people talk about Ashley having payed off the club's debts, in all probability the debts have effectively just changed hands and we don't know what the terms of the loan are (ie Ashley may still be charging the club interest on the loan).

[quayside]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

 

I don't understand. What's the difference between Chelsea's situation and ours?

Think he's on about the rest of the 'big 4' rather than us.

 

As I see it he's saying Chelsea have a £500 million debt which is owed to Abramovich as he has been spending his own money on the club, whereas we have zero debt because Ashley paid it off with his own money, rather than we have a £75m debt owed to Ashley.

 

It may be just a technicality, or it may be significant in some way. That's what I don't understand.

 

I was talking about Chelsea compared to the rest of the top 4 as Alex said.

 

As far as we are concerned Ashley put in £75 million but I don't know if it went in as a loan or as equity because it happened after the 2007 year end and the exact details aren't in the latest accounts.

 

Interesting. I'd guess he probably did the same as Abramovich. So actually when people talk about Ashley having payed off the club's debts, in all probability the debts have effectively just changed hands and we don't know what the terms of the loan are (ie Ashley may still be charging the club interest on the loan).

 

Could be.

[Parky]

Our debt situation was fine, it was triggered by the buy-out and thats what Ashley couldnt see before buying, hence the surprise. Maybe no one wanted to tell him (halls wanted to sell so didnt want to highlight a deal breaker, shepherd didnt want to sell and didnt want them forewarned if they got their hands on the club).

 

The other bits and losses would have been sorted once the 30m extra per year TV money kicks in. Other clubs will gain this too but the likes of pompey and blackburn have much lower revenue bases already, meaning that the ground capacity would have continued to deliver a financial advantage over most clubs.

 

Yes. People need to grasp the fact that the club wasn't on the brink of some great calamity.

[Slugsy]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.

 

I don't understand. What's the difference between Chelsea's situation and ours?

Think he's on about the rest of the 'big 4' rather than us.

 

As I see it he's saying Chelsea have a £500 million debt which is owed to Abramovich as he has been spending his own money on the club, whereas we have zero debt because Ashley paid it off with his own money, rather than we have a £75m debt owed to Ashley.

 

It may be just a technicality, or it may be significant in some way. That's what I don't understand.

 

I was talking about Chelsea compared to the rest of the top 4 as Alex said.

 

As far as we are concerned Ashley put in £75 million but I don't know if it went in as a loan or as equity because it happened after the 2007 year end and the exact details aren't in the latest accounts.

 

Interesting. I'd guess he probably did the same as Abramovich. So actually when people talk about Ashley having payed off the club's debts, in all probability the debts have effectively just changed hands and we don't know what the terms of the loan are (ie Ashley may still be charging the club interest on the loan).

 

Could be.

 

We won't know until St James Holding Ltd, Newcastle's parent company publishes its accounts for the first time, that was the company that actually paid the debt on behalf of the football club.  I would be gobsmacked if the debt isn't still there but now instead of the bank we have Ashley.   Ashley would be insane not to have put the cash in as a loan.

[danswan]

Our debt situation was fine, it was triggered by the buy-out and thats what Ashley couldnt see before buying, hence the surprise. Maybe no one wanted to tell him (halls wanted to sell so didnt want to highlight a deal breaker, shepherd didnt want to sell and didnt want them forewarned if they got their hands on the club).

 

The other bits and losses would have been sorted once the 30m extra per year TV money kicks in. Other clubs will gain this too but the likes of pompey and blackburn have much lower revenue bases already, meaning that the ground capacity would have continued to deliver a financial advantage over most clubs.

 

Yes. People need to grasp the fact that the club wasn't on the brink of some great calamity.

 

until Smith signed...

[madras]

Our debt situation was fine, it was triggered by the buy-out and thats what Ashley couldnt see before buying, hence the surprise. Maybe no one wanted to tell him (halls wanted to sell so didnt want to highlight a deal breaker, shepherd didnt want to sell and didnt want them forewarned if they got their hands on the club).

 

The other bits and losses would have been sorted once the 30m extra per year TV money kicks in. Other clubs will gain this too but the likes of pompey and blackburn have much lower revenue bases already, meaning that the ground capacity would have continued to deliver a financial advantage over most clubs.

 

Yes. People need to grasp the fact that the club wasn't on the brink of some great calamity.

not on the brink....but walking towards it.

[ChezGiven]

If ashley put the cash in as a loan then the value of the club doesnt rise and re-sale is harder.

 

 

[Slugsy]

If ashley put the cash in as a loan then the value of the club doesnt rise and re-sale is harder.

 

 

 

Exactly, the only plus point being we may not be paying interest now on the debt, but that's a pure guess at this stage.

[ChezGiven]

Our debt situation was fine, it was triggered by the buy-out and thats what Ashley couldnt see before buying, hence the surprise. Maybe no one wanted to tell him (halls wanted to sell so didnt want to highlight a deal breaker, shepherd didnt want to sell and didnt want them forewarned if they got their hands on the club).

 

The other bits and losses would have been sorted once the 30m extra per year TV money kicks in. Other clubs will gain this too but the likes of pompey and blackburn have much lower revenue bases already, meaning that the ground capacity would have continued to deliver a financial advantage over most clubs.

 

Yes. People need to grasp the fact that the club wasn't on the brink of some great calamity.

not on the brink....but walking towards it.

Rubbish. Future revenues are far too high.

[Guest East Stander]

Our debt situation was fine, it was triggered by the buy-out and thats what Ashley couldnt see before buying, hence the surprise. Maybe no one wanted to tell him (halls wanted to sell so didnt want to highlight a deal breaker, shepherd didnt want to sell and didnt want them forewarned if they got their hands on the club).

 

The other bits and losses would have been sorted once the 30m extra per year TV money kicks in. Other clubs will gain this too but the likes of pompey and blackburn have much lower revenue bases already, meaning that the ground capacity would have continued to deliver a financial advantage over most clubs.

 

Yes. People need to grasp the fact that the club wasn't on the brink of some great calamity.

 

I'd disagree with that. Fatso had already spent up all the sponsorship money from the Rock and Adidas for the rest of those sponsorship contracts. An £8 mill loan on future broadcasting income had been taken out. Cash flow wise, the club was stuffed until Ashley came along.

[madras]

i hope they pass the 2nd test if the 1st test can take 39 pages.

[UV]

i hope they pass the 2nd test if the 1st test can take 39 pages.

 

They've handed the paper in but it doesn't get marked until May.

If they fail that one I think you can expect one or two threads much longer than 39 pages.

[ChezGiven]

Our debt situation was fine, it was triggered by the buy-out and thats what Ashley couldnt see before buying, hence the surprise. Maybe no one wanted to tell him (halls wanted to sell so didnt want to highlight a deal breaker, shepherd didnt want to sell and didnt want them forewarned if they got their hands on the club).

 

The other bits and losses would have been sorted once the 30m extra per year TV money kicks in. Other clubs will gain this too but the likes of pompey and blackburn have much lower revenue bases already, meaning that the ground capacity would have continued to deliver a financial advantage over most clubs.

 

Yes. People need to grasp the fact that the club wasn't on the brink of some great calamity.

 

I'd disagree with that. Fatso had already spent up all the sponsorship money from the Rock and Adidas for the rest of those sponsorship contracts. An £8 mill loan on future broadcasting income had been taken out. Cash flow wise, the club was stuffed until Ashley came along.

Cash flow was the least of our worries, that refers to flows of money into the club which of course were fine, as that is driven by fundamentals like ticket sales and tv money. 8 mill loan on a yearly revenue stream of 30 mill is nowt, think about a mortgage where the rules are even tighter and you take out multiples of the yearly income not proportions. 

 

Fuck me.

 

 

[Parky]

Our debt situation was fine, it was triggered by the buy-out and thats what Ashley couldnt see before buying, hence the surprise. Maybe no one wanted to tell him (halls wanted to sell so didnt want to highlight a deal breaker, shepherd didnt want to sell and didnt want them forewarned if they got their hands on the club).

 

The other bits and losses would have been sorted once the 30m extra per year TV money kicks in. Other clubs will gain this too but the likes of pompey and blackburn have much lower revenue bases already, meaning that the ground capacity would have continued to deliver a financial advantage over most clubs.

 

Yes. People need to grasp the fact that the club wasn't on the brink of some great calamity.

 

I'd disagree with that. Fatso had already spent up all the sponsorship money from the Rock and Adidas for the rest of those sponsorship contracts. An £8 mill loan on future broadcasting income had been taken out. Cash flow wise, the club was stuffed until Ashley came along.

Cash flow was the least of our worries, that refers to flows of money into the club which of course were fine, as that is driven by fundamentals like ticket sales and tv money. 8 mill loan on a yearly revenue stream of 30 mill is nowt, think about a mortgage where the rules are even tighter and you take out multiples of the yearly income not proportions. 

 

Fuck me.

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

Our debt situation was fine, it was triggered by the buy-out and thats what Ashley couldnt see before buying, hence the surprise. Maybe no one wanted to tell him (halls wanted to sell so didnt want to highlight a deal breaker, shepherd didnt want to sell and didnt want them forewarned if they got their hands on the club).

 

The other bits and losses would have been sorted once the 30m extra per year TV money kicks in. Other clubs will gain this too but the likes of pompey and blackburn have much lower revenue bases already, meaning that the ground capacity would have continued to deliver a financial advantage over most clubs.

 

Yes. People need to grasp the fact that the club wasn't on the brink of some great calamity.

 

I'd disagree with that. Fatso had already spent up all the sponsorship money from the Rock and Adidas for the rest of those sponsorship contracts. An £8 mill loan on future broadcasting income had been taken out. Cash flow wise, the club was stuffed until Ashley came along.

Cash flow was the least of our worries, that refers to flows of money into the club which of course were fine, as that is driven by fundamentals like ticket sales and tv money. 8 mill loan on a yearly revenue stream of 30 mill is nowt, think about a mortgage where the rules are even tighter and you take out multiples of the yearly income not proportions. 

 

Fuck me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

we have indeed. Simple fact is that NUFC will never go bust and the nearest they will ever be is where they were when the Halls and Shepherd saved it in 1992.

 

As I have also said, the top 4 are quite happy with their debts - and success on the field, the purchase of these despicable "trophy" players, and the trophies that these players win. While some people on here prefer us to operate a "sell to buy" policy, buying a host of Johnny Averages and fight a relegation battle as a result, simply because they didn't like the fat b****** and were so absolutely obsessed and had their heads in the sand so much re their hatred of the fat b******, they even rather sadly dismissed his attempts to back his managers to bring top quality players to the club, being totally incapable of admitting or even realising that this is indeed the way that a club such as NUFC should be operating.

 

 

 

you're happy with this relegation fight and the possibility of ending up where the Halls and the fat bastard found us as soon as they have left then ?