Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I'd still prefer Ashley to stay, throw tonnes of money at Mort to come back full time, and try market for a world class manager. The only thing Ashley likes to throw tons of money at is stock share gambling. he threw lots of money at karrimor,lillywhites,kangol etc. Did he?, to what extent and on what? Cheap stock to sell on at a profit? to buy them outright and they are still part of sports direct group. Not what I was talking about in the slightest, I can go and buy a house outright to rent out , but if I then leave it in a shitty state it could hardly be claimed that I 'threw money at it'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means fuck all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about in terms of the debt part of what he's done have you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Yeah ok No matter what anybody says about him, he's invested more into this club than anybody in our history. Yet once he's gone he'll have done nothing but take money out like all the rest. Fine, Newcastle United isn't a charity of course, so I'm not asking for any. What I'd have liked is a man who was prepared to risk a little on trying the make the club a success, especially when he's willing to risk £300 million on a seemingly idiotic share bet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means f*** all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. He didn't have to pay off as many of the loans as he did, he had to pay off something like £45 million. As for him not being willing to risk a penny, I'll go back to the £240 million that he's spent so far, that's a risk as he's not guaranteed to get his money back when he sells up. This is a very bad time to try to get large sums of money out of anybody as banks are just not lending to anybody and those who will give out loans are asking for a lot of interest in return. My guess is that we're probably needing a cash buyer and I don't think they grow on trees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means fuck all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about in terms of the debt part of what he's done have you? Why don't you explain it then? He's paid off a debt which then increases the price of his own asset, where am I wrong? Enlighten me. I was as happy as the next man when he paid off the debt. But everything that's happened since has made me think a hell of a lot more cynically about the whole thing. It seems all he was willing to do with Newcastle was play it safe, invest in nothing but the safest ways, money that he was guarenteed to recover. Fine if that's his nature, but at the same time he throws more money then it took to buy the club and pay off debt on a bet, a fucking bet! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means fuck all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. How do you know that the money he was forced to pay (about £45m?) wasn't earmarked for transfers? Do you think the new owners of West Ham potentially having to pay £30m compensation to Sheff Utd won't have an impact on their transfer budget? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Yet once he's gone he'll have done nothing but take money out like all the rest. Fine, Newcastle United isn't a charity of course, so I'm not asking for any. What I'd have liked is a man who was prepared to risk a little on trying the make the club a success, especially when he's willing to risk £300 million on a seemingly idiotic share bet. I doubt for one minute that he thought that he was risking £300 million on a bet, we don't even know if he's lost that much anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means f*** all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. He didn't have to pay off as many of the loans as he did, he had to pay off something like £45 million. As for him not being willing to risk a penny, I'll go back to the £240 million that he's spent so far, that's a risk as he's not guaranteed to get his money back when he sells up. This is a very bad time to try to get large sums of money out of anybody as banks are just not lending to anybody and those who will give out loans are asking for a lot of interest in return. My guess is that we're probably needing a cash buyer and I don't think they grow on trees. Premiership clubs don't lose there worth over night, in fact its pretty hard to lose worth at all unless you get relegated or go into administration. Just look at the current situation, he's bought the club for £133 million, more then it was worth at the time. He's then spent £100 million on debt. Since then the clubs gone on a downward spiral and is currently in a worse position then its been in its Premiership history, surely he can't get that £233 million back right?, not if was a risk in the first place. But you watch he's going to walk away with a profit overall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means fuck all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. How do you know that the money he was forced to pay (about £45m?) wasn't earmarked for transfers? Do you think the new owners of West Ham potentially having to pay £30m compensation to Sheff Utd won't have an impact on their transfer budget? That money becomes an asset that he's going to get back though, are we to believe he physically can't find anymore cash for transfers but he can go to the bookies and make £300 million bets? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means fuck all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about in terms of the debt part of what he's done have you? Why don't you explain it then? He's paid off a debt which then increases the price of his own asset, where am I wrong? Enlighten me. Easy 1) there's actually little difference between the rubbish in your first paragraph rather than "a big difference" like you say 2) he wasn't "forced to pay off the debt" 3) the idea he's not risked a penny is quite frankly stupid. As an example, if we got relegated last season, do you think he'd have got that money back? 4) how do you know the share bet was "very" dodgy at the time? Do you believe everything you read in the papers? All financial transactions carry a risk. Just like paying that debt off did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 That money becomes an asset that he's going to get back though, are we to believe he physically can't find anymore cash for transfers but he can go to the bookies and make £300 million bets? I'm sorry Teasy, but it really isn't that straight forward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Premiership clubs don't lose there worth over night, in fact its pretty hard to lose worth at all unless you get relegated or go into administration. Just look at the current situation, he's bought the club for £133 million, more then it was worth at the time. He's then spent £100 million on debt. Since then the clubs gone on a downward spiral and is currently in a worse position then its been in its Premiership history, surely he can't get that £233 million back right?, not if was a risk in the first place. But you watch he's going to walk away with a profit overall. I honestly think he'll struggle to make much of a profit on the club sale and I think Premiership clubs are going to struggle just like almost every other business sector over the next couple of years. A couple of clubs are almost immune because of who owns the clubs but even they are in danger to some extent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means f*** all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about in terms of the debt part of what he's done have you? Why don't you explain it then? He's paid off a debt which then increases the price of his own asset, where am I wrong? Enlighten me. Easy 1) there's actually little difference between the rubbish in your first paragraph rather than "a big difference" like you say 2) he wasn't "forced to pay off the debt" 3) the idea he's not risked a penny is quite frankly stupid. As an example, if we got relegated last season, do you think he'd have got that money back? 4) how do you know the share bet was "very" dodgy at the time? Do you believe everything you read in the papers? All financial transactions carry a risk. Just like paying that debt off did. on point 4. i wonder if it was his first go ? or if maybe he's "won" in the past. bit like slagging for someone off for losing £1000 on a horse race when they've made £10,000 off racing in the previous week. or do you think printing a story about him winning money wouldn't be newsworthy ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means fuck all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about in terms of the debt part of what he's done have you? Why don't you explain it then? He's paid off a debt which then increases the price of his own asset, where am I wrong? Enlighten me. Easy 1) there's actually little difference between the rubbish in your first paragraph rather than "a big difference" like you say 2) he wasn't "forced to pay off the debt" 3) the idea he's not risked a penny is quite frankly stupid. As an example, if we got relegated last season, do you think he'd have got that money back? 4) how do you know the share bet was "very" dodgy at the time? Do you believe everything you read in the papers? All financial transactions carry a risk. Just like paying that debt off did. No idea what you're on about with number one. He was forced to pay off debt, the club changing ownership triggered that, something he's never refuted. To talk about relegation as a risk when he came in would be mental quite frankly, if you take consider that to be a risk of the same level as share betting (something that's actually gone tits up for him as well I might add) then I don't know what to say to you, don't go near a bookies maybe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Premiership clubs don't lose there worth over night, in fact its pretty hard to lose worth at all unless you get relegated or go into administration. Just look at the current situation, he's bought the club for £133 million, more then it was worth at the time. He's then spent £100 million on debt. Since then the clubs gone on a downward spiral and is currently in a worse position then its been in its Premiership history, surely he can't get that £233 million back right?, not if was a risk in the first place. But you watch he's going to walk away with a profit overall. Really? Our share price history............. http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4543/sharepricese9.jpg http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4543/sharepricese9.1aad2a0ba7.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 That money becomes an asset that he's going to get back though, are we to believe he physically can't find anymore cash for transfers but he can go to the bookies and make £300 million bets? I'm sorry Teasy, but it really isn't that straight forward. It is, you'll see when he sells up, not only will he make everything back he'll come on with profit. Despite the club being in a total mess. Buy a Football club, fuck it up, the fans demand you leave and still you make a profit, what a risky purchase that was eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No idea what you're on about with number one. He was forced to pay off debt, the club changing ownership triggered that, something he's never refuted. To talk about relegation as a risk when he came in would be mental quite frankly, if you take consider that to be a risk of the same level as share betting (something that's actually gone tits up for him as well I might add) then I don't know what to say to you, don't go near a bookies maybe? You think he's lost more on share dealing than he's made? mackems.gif I bow to your superior financial knowledge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Premiership clubs don't lose there worth over night, in fact its pretty hard to lose worth at all unless you get relegated or go into administration. Just look at the current situation, he's bought the club for £133 million, more then it was worth at the time. He's then spent £100 million on debt. Since then the clubs gone on a downward spiral and is currently in a worse position then its been in its Premiership history, surely he can't get that £233 million back right?, not if was a risk in the first place. But you watch he's going to walk away with a profit overall. I honestly think he'll struggle to make much of a profit on the club sale and I think Premiership clubs are going to struggle just like almost every other business sector over the next couple of years. A couple of clubs are almost immune because of who owns the clubs but even they are in danger to some extent. But he will make a profit. How can a Football club be considered a risky investment if you can come in, ruin it, be chased out with pitchforks and still make any kind of profit on the sale? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VegasToon Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Ashley will not be able to sell for the price he wants. The best thing he could do is get a permanent manager and sign Micheal Owen. A winning Newcastle club will be worth a lot more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No I'm saying that it means fuck all and frankly I can't believe anyones naive enough to still think about it in that way given the current situation. There's a big difference between buying a club and paying off debts and actually risking some money on making that club successful. He's spent money on a solid asset and then paid off debts (that he was forced to pay BTW) that have linearly increased the price of that asset. The fact is he's not willing to actually risk a penny on the club. On the other hand he'll risk £300 million on a very dodgy share bet. You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about in terms of the debt part of what he's done have you? Why don't you explain it then? He's paid off a debt which then increases the price of his own asset, where am I wrong? Enlighten me. Easy 1) there's actually little difference between the rubbish in your first paragraph rather than "a big difference" like you say 2) he wasn't "forced to pay off the debt" 3) the idea he's not risked a penny is quite frankly stupid. As an example, if we got relegated last season, do you think he'd have got that money back? 4) how do you know the share bet was "very" dodgy at the time? Do you believe everything you read in the papers? All financial transactions carry a risk. Just like paying that debt off did. No idea what you're on about with number one. He was forced to pay off debt, the club changing ownership triggered that, something he's never refuted. To talk about relegation as a risk when he came in would be mental quite frankly, if you take consider that to be a risk of the same level as share betting (something that's actually gone tits up for him as well I might add) then I don't know what to say to you, don't go near a bookies maybe? He was forced to pay the stadium debt which was about £45 million, not all of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 But he will make a profit. How can a Football club be considered a risky investment if you can come in, ruin it, be chased out with pitchforks and still make any kind of profit on the sale? That might turn out to be the case but he might have to sell at a loss because of the global financial crisis which is closing the institutions which control the financial markets, even people who are cash rich are potentially in danger. Stick your £2 billion in Barclays, it goes down and the government will give you £50,000 back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Really? Our share price history............. http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4543/sharepricese9.jpg http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4543/sharepricese9.1aad2a0ba7.jpg Oh please, share prices? They were notoriously inflated, the club was worth £200 million when Ashley bought it (based on the actual settled price at the time and with the debt added on). A a year later its in ruins, no manager and Ashley hated and chased out of the club, yet now its going to sell for £280 million. Considering what's happened shouldn't the club be worth well under £200 million?, that is if its at such a big risk of losing value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Really? Our share price history............. http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4543/sharepricese9.jpg http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4543/sharepricese9.1aad2a0ba7.jpg Oh please, share prices? They were notoriously inflated, the club was worth £200 million when Ashley bought it (based on the actual settled price at the time and with the debt added on). A a year later its in ruins, no manager and Ashley hated and chased out of the club, yet now its going to sell for £280 million. Considering what's happened shouldn't the club be worth well under £200 million?, that is if its at such a big risk of losing value. You're on the wind up aren't you? mackems.gif Unless you're absolutely clueless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 No idea what you're on about with number one. He was forced to pay off debt, the club changing ownership triggered that, something he's never refuted. To talk about relegation as a risk when he came in would be mental quite frankly, if you take consider that to be a risk of the same level as share betting (something that's actually gone tits up for him as well I might add) then I don't know what to say to you, don't go near a bookies maybe? You think he's lost more on share dealing than he's made? mackems.gif I bow to your superior financial knowledge. I don't think that, I don't know nor care. Its irrelivant to me how good Mike Ashley is at picking winners at the bookies. My only problem with it is that he's got no problem with gambling (real gambling not making a solid investment like NUFC) hundred of millions of pounds yet he's not willing to take the same kind of risk with even a quarter of the money at NUFC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Oh please, share prices? They were notoriously inflated, the club was worth £200 million when Ashley bought it (based on the actual settled price at the time and with the debt added on). A a year later its in ruins, no manager and Ashley hated and chased out of the club, yet now its going to sell for £280 million. Considering what's happened shouldn't the club be worth well under £200 million?, that is if its at such a big risk of losing value. What Ashley wants and ends up getting are totally different so using hypothetical figures for an argument is fairly useless, and that would be the same if I guessed he'd get £100 million and used that to build an argument around. 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