Matt Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Or he didnt understand the financial structure of a football business and thought it was imperative to clear the debt of the club rahter than put the funding on the field where it in needed the most. Do you know what a change of ownership clause is, by the way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Would of been interesting to know the amount of cash he'd of handed over to Allardyce had he not have to pay off all that debt. Seems a bit strange though that he paid off that extra £30m rather than plunge it into the transfer kitty having paid the compulsory £60m, Were our finances really that bad?? Think you answered your own question. Why would Shepherd want to stay with a sinking ship and even acquire the club outright if things were so bad?? Ive heard pretty convincing arguments on this board about the debt at the club being 'manageable' , if so why did Ashley feel the need to plunge that extra £30m?? And make Allardyce operate on a effectively a buy to sell policy. It seems if people say we had a buy to sell policy enough then some people will obviously believe it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Would of been interesting to know the amount of cash he'd of handed over to Allardyce had he not have to pay off all that debt. Seems a bit strange though that he paid off that extra £30m rather than plunge it into the transfer kitty having paid the compulsory £60m, Were our finances really that bad?? Think you answered your own question. Why would Shepherd want to stay with a sinking ship and even acquire the club outright if things were so bad?? Ive heard pretty convincing arguments on this board about the debt at the club being 'manageable' , if so why did Ashley feel the need to plunge that extra £30m?? And make Allardyce operate on a effectively a buy to sell policy. Ashley must be a bad businessman Or he didnt understand the financial structure of a football business and thought it was imperative to clear the debt of the club rahter than put the funding on the field where it in needed the most. More nonsense Great retort, really slammed the point down there. There is hardly a club in england that operates without debt. Yet there are many wealthy owners who would be able to pay off the debts like Ashley has and make the club more profitable but they dont. What im trying to say is if the £60m was compulsory, then why did he think that ensuring we were debt free in his first season was more imporant than putting that extra £30m onto the field, where argunably it was more important. Its just that, relatively speaking, £30m doesnt seem like a lot of debt to me for a club our size, whereas £30m is a hell of a lot of money regrading transfers. And in my mind letting Allradyce build the squad he wanted was more important than clearing that £30m. Its just a small point, im not going all NE5 on you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Or he didnt understand the financial structure of a football business and thought it was imperative to clear the debt of the club rahter than put the funding on the field where it in needed the most. Do you know what a change of ownership clause is, by the way? Yes thanks. But the extra £30m was nothing to do with that clause according to the clubs accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Would of been interesting to know the amount of cash he'd of handed over to Allardyce had he not have to pay off all that debt. Seems a bit strange though that he paid off that extra £30m rather than plunge it into the transfer kitty having paid the compulsory £60m, Were our finances really that bad?? Think you answered your own question. Why would Shepherd want to stay with a sinking ship and even acquire the club outright if things were so bad?? Ive heard pretty convincing arguments on this board about the debt at the club being 'manageable' , if so why did Ashley feel the need to plunge that extra £30m?? And make Allardyce operate on a effectively a buy to sell policy. It seems if people say we had a buy to sell policy enough then some people will obviously believe it. It was nothing of the sort though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Would of been interesting to know the amount of cash he'd of handed over to Allardyce had he not have to pay off all that debt. Seems a bit strange though that he paid off that extra £30m rather than plunge it into the transfer kitty having paid the compulsory £60m, Were our finances really that bad?? Think you answered your own question. Why would Shepherd want to stay with a sinking ship and even acquire the club outright if things were so bad?? Ive heard pretty convincing arguments on this board about the debt at the club being 'manageable' , if so why did Ashley feel the need to plunge that extra £30m?? And make Allardyce operate on a effectively a buy to sell policy. It seems if people say we had a buy to sell policy enough then some people will obviously believe it. It was nothing of the sort though. What makes you so sure? All im saying is that effectively, the way we did business this sumer was akin to a buy to sell policy. Im not saying it was the case, and thats what definitely happened, but with the OP article statting that Ashley wanted to spend more this past summer but couldnt because of the debt, thenwhy did he fell the need to plunge that £30m into the debt which wasnt compulsory rather than give it to Allardyce outright. Like i say, im not categorically saying it WAS a buy to sell policy, im not using it as a stick to shake at Ashley etc but the transfers kind of worked that way. Significantly Parker - Barton Dyer - Smith Not So.. Then you have the rest Geremi,Enrique Roz, Faye, Beye and Cacapa. Aside from Enrique the others arent exaclty prolific signings and even half of that £30m could of been put to better use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Would of been interesting to know the amount of cash he'd of handed over to Allardyce had he not have to pay off all that debt. Seems a bit strange though that he paid off that extra £30m rather than plunge it into the transfer kitty having paid the compulsory £60m, Were our finances really that bad?? Think you answered your own question. Why would Shepherd want to stay with a sinking ship and even acquire the club outright if things were so bad?? Ive heard pretty convincing arguments on this board about the debt at the club being 'manageable' , if so why did Ashley feel the need to plunge that extra £30m?? And make Allardyce operate on a effectively a buy to sell policy. It seems if people say we had a buy to sell policy enough then some people will obviously believe it. It was nothing of the sort though. What makes you so sure? All im saying is that effectively, the way we did business this sumer was akin to a buy to sell policy. Im not saying it was the case, and thats what definitely happened, but with the OP article statting that Ashley wanted to spend more this past summer but couldnt because of the debt, thenwhy did he fell the need to plunge that £30m into the debt which wasnt compulsory rather than give it to Allardyce outright. Like i say, im not categorically saying it WAS a buy to sell policy, im not using it as a stick to shake at Ashley etc but the transfers kind of worked that way. Significantly Parker - Barton Dyer - Smith Not So.. Then you have the rest Geremi,Enrique Roz, Faye, Beye and Cacapa. Aside from Enrique the others arent exaclty prolific signings and even half of that £30m could of been put to better use. If players leave you replace them, the West Ham deal was set up while we were looking at other midfielders but Allardyce wouldn't let him leave until he had Barton's word that he would join us, that's making sure you're not left with a small squad rather than operating at a buy to sell policy, Dyer is slightly different in that Allardyce didn't want him to leave, he lethim leave in the end though and had to go out and replace him, again I don't see that as a buy to sell policy, to me a buy to sell policy would be us having to sell players to finance new one's coming in and considering we spent something like £9 million net then that doesn't seem like the case. As for Allardyce not having more money to spend, I don't remember him saying the money wasn't there, he always said that he went to the board with the players he wanted and it was taken from there, that includes getting turned down by Silvestre and Dragutinovic, in fact I remember him saying he was happy to go with what he had before Beye and Faye came in. On the plus side we should be thankfull he didn't spend anymore because most of the money he spent was pissed up against the wall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Would of been interesting to know the amount of cash he'd of handed over to Allardyce had he not have to pay off all that debt. Seems a bit strange though that he paid off that extra £30m rather than plunge it into the transfer kitty having paid the compulsory £60m, Were our finances really that bad?? Think you answered your own question. Why would Shepherd want to stay with a sinking ship and even acquire the club outright if things were so bad?? Ive heard pretty convincing arguments on this board about the debt at the club being 'manageable' , if so why did Ashley feel the need to plunge that extra £30m?? And make Allardyce operate on a effectively a buy to sell policy. It seems if people say we had a buy to sell policy enough then some people will obviously believe it. It was nothing of the sort though. What makes you so sure? All im saying is that effectively, the way we did business this sumer was akin to a buy to sell policy. Im not saying it was the case, and thats what definitely happened, but with the OP article statting that Ashley wanted to spend more this past summer but couldnt because of the debt, thenwhy did he fell the need to plunge that £30m into the debt which wasnt compulsory rather than give it to Allardyce outright. Like i say, im not categorically saying it WAS a buy to sell policy, im not using it as a stick to shake at Ashley etc but the transfers kind of worked that way. Significantly Parker - Barton Dyer - Smith Not So.. Then you have the rest Geremi,Enrique Roz, Faye, Beye and Cacapa. Aside from Enrique the others arent exaclty prolific signings and even half of that £30m could of been put to better use. If players leave you replace them, the West Ham deal was set up while we were looking at other midfielders but Allardyce wouldn't let him leave until he had Barton's word that he would join us, that's making sure you're not left with a small squad rather than operating at a buy to sell policy, Dyer is slightly different in that Allardyce didn't want him to leave, he lethim leave in the end though and had to go out and replace him, again I don't see that as a buy to sell policy, to me a buy to sell policy would be us having to sell players to finance new one's coming in and considering we spent something like £9 million net then that doesn't seem like the case. As for Allardyce not having more money to spend, I don't remember him saying the money wasn't there, he always said that he went to the board with the players he wanted and it was taken from there, that includes getting turned down by Silvestre and Dragutinovic, in fact I remember him saying he was happy to go with what he had before Beye and Faye came in. On the plus side we should be thankfull he didn't spend anymore because most of the money he spent was pissed up against the wall. Well this is why i said it was akin to a buy to sell policy in the sense that it looked from the outset that the transfers we made were dependent on the outgoing trasfers. Ie Dyer and Parker. The article just seems a tad strange when it says he wanted to pour more into the transfer side of things but couldnt because of the debt, which to me suggests that he didnt quite appreciate the true nature of the football businness where unlinke most business debt is part and parcel of the business. Its either that conclusion or the whole article in the other thread is a PR exercise, which i hope it isnt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Having the money and getting players to come here after how far we've fallen over the past few seasons are two different things. Don't think thats ever been a problem really. We attracted the likes of Martins from Inter Milan and Owen from Real Madrid when we were s*** mid-table teams. Money talks these days really tbh. Neither of these are valid comparisons - Owen was unwanted by his No 1 choice of club(they, like everyone else, were not prepared to pay over the top for himand he also wanted to get enough football to enable him to get into the England squad for the WC. Martins is hardly a world star, and we paid at least 3m more for him than we should have done... It WILL be difficult to get the TOP players to join NUFC now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Having the money and getting players to come here after how far we've fallen over the past few seasons are two different things. Don't think thats ever been a problem really. We attracted the likes of Martins from Inter Milan and Owen from Real Madrid when we were s*** mid-table teams. Money talks these days really tbh. Neither of these are valid comparisons - Owen was unwanted by his No 1 choice of club(they, like everyone else, were not prepared to pay over the top for himand he also wanted to get enough football to enable him to get into the England squad for the WC. Martins is hardly a world star, and we paid at least 3m more for him than we should have done... It WILL be difficult to get the TOP players to join NUFC now. We paid for Martins' potential. I have no idea where you're getting this £3m from, but Portsmouth were rumoured to be sniffing around and seemingly willing to pay £10m as well. I reckon, in time, he'll prove his worth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 ASHLEY'S A LOSER EXCLUSIVE By JAMES WEATHERUP NOTW BILLIONAIRE Newcastle owner Mike Ashley has lost an astonishing £129million gambling on financial markets in the City. And that could spark fears Ashley, who bought the club last May, is on the brink of selling out at St James' Park. The tycoon (right) suffered the amazing losses after a series of poor bets on the value of crisis-hit Halifax Bank of Scotland stock. The mind-boggling losses were revealed after HBOS was at the centre of false rumours it was about to collapse and millions of pounds were wiped off its share price on Wednesday. Ashley, 44, has always pledged his long-term commitment to Newcastle but now Toon insiders believe he is weighing up a deal to sell. Newcastle 2, Fulham 0 - full report and pictures Sign up to our new Match Centre on your mobile Newcastle fans will be stunned to hear about Ashley's giant loss. While it hardly leaves him on skid row, it won't help Newcastle's morale as they battle to haul themselves clear of the relegation zone. Despite Saturday's 2-0 win over Fulham in which Mark Viduka was on target, the club are still at the wrong end of the table. Gambled A City insider explained: "Mike should have got out a long time ago when the extent of mortgage debt in America was made clear last year. "It has effected all the markets and HBOS is just one of them. "When the stock was priced at £8.80, he gambled £300,000 a point for each penny rise or fall. If the price rose a penny he would get £300,000 but if it fell he would lose that amount." Ashley gambled on IG Index, a spread betting firm in the financial sector. The firm do not buy or sell shares, just take bets on whether the market is going to go up or down. And in Ashley's case his wagers have been nothing short of catastrophic. His win and loss accounts make nightmare reading. After the dramatic crash this week HBOS was at one point trading at £3.98 before making a recovery. But the shares had still lost nearly 50 per cent of their value since Ashley started gambling on their value going up in October. Despite a couple of £10m-plus wins in November last year he ended with a net loss of over £10m after the first month's trading. Blowing Between November and December 1 he lost about £14m and between December and January £20m. Ashley nearly steadied the ship between January and February, cutting his losses to £39m, but then he lost another £29m. After Wednesday's freefall of HBOS shares — 17 per cent (or £3billion) was wiped off their value in just 15 minutes — Ashley's total losses, including this month's trading so far, add up to a mind-blowing £129m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 He must be skint NOTW in the smallest section they could find also reported that Ashley paid 100000 for a round of golf with Given and Owen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 All speculative NOTW bollocks aside, on a theoretical level of course it is entirely feasible and plausible that Ashley may want to jump ship, especially if his own financial position was to become precarious in the current economic climate...but if anything, I'd argue the current market "crisis" is more likely to see Ashley wanting to stay and shore things up at SJP, so he can build on his existing investment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 That news of the world article is brilliant for all the wrong reasons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Mike Ashley would only have lost that money on shares if he sold them now. The shares will probably recover over the next few years. Anyway, £129m represents something like 10% of his personal wealth. Newcastle winning yesterday has kicked up a hornets nest of negative stories in the media today: - Newcastle striker Obafemi Martins is on the verge of handing in a transfer request if things don't improve at the club over the summer. (News of the World) Newcastle owner Mike Ashley has lost a reported £129m gambling on financial markets sparking fears he could be about to sell the club. (News of the World) Meanwhile Martin Jol has emerged as the leading contender to take over at Newcastle - if Kevin Keegan fails. (Sunday Mirror) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dev Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Every time someone posts a NOTW rumour about Ashley selling the club, baby jesus cries. And making baby jesus cry at easter is just plain mean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Every time someone posts a NOTW rumour about Ashley selling the club, baby jesus cries. And making baby jesus cry at easter is just plain mean. post of the year! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hellhammer Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Newcastle striker Obafemi Martins is on the verge of handing in a transfer request if things don't improve at the club over the summer. (News of the World) That wouldnt surprise me. If we stick with Owen next season, he will be gone. Thats my guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 And to think if Ashley hadn't blown his money he'd have £229m to spend this summer. What a tw*tface eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 i like the idea that martins is on the "verge" (suggesting its imminent) if things don't improve over the summer (suggesting it's not at all imminent) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 i like the idea that martins is on the "verge" (suggesting its imminent) if things don't improve over the summer (suggesting it's not at all imminent) He'll be loving the attention though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Btw Peter Beardsley actually works for the club in a community role. Anyway it's pretty common knowledge inside SJP that there will be mega money for KK in the summer. Although I doubt he'll get £100m, more like £50-60m if he can spend it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spurs_from_Africa Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Why do journalists always make up bullshit rumours and then pretend they have sources inside the club who told them this information? I'm waiting to be shot down here with a stat but has any club ever spent £100 million in one season? Man utd spent 50, real 80, shaktar 40, us 35 last summer. I dont remember a 100 mil warchest though, especially from a club who arent in the cl. While I have no doubt you will spend big next season, I doubt Ashley will be delving that deeply into his pockets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Chelsea surely have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spurs_from_Africa Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I knew I'd get proved wrong. Chelsea spent around 140 million in 2005. Still, they are very much a uinque case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now