Guest Edd Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If there are indeed seven parties genuinely interested, that's very positive news. We can only hope Ashley cares enough about the club to only sell to someone who looks like they'll do good things for it. Not sure he'll give a fuck though. I'm not sure he should give a fuck either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If there are indeed seven parties genuinely interested, that's very positive news. We can only hope Ashley cares enough about the club to only sell to someone who looks like they'll do good things for it. Not sure he'll give a fuck though. Fingers crossed this is true http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/3717635.More_bidders_waiting_in_the_wings_for_Magpies/ 'While the sportswear magnate will not sell unless he is able to recoup the £250m he has invested in buying out the former regime and reducing Newcastle’s debt, sources close to the negotiating process claim he will not sell to the highest bidder unless guarantees relating to the level of financial backing beyond the purchase price are met. ' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 It certainly is, I just wish I knew what in the hell is going on, all we no at the moment is some Nigerian consortium which look very dodgy are in for us and another 6 unconfirmed bidders. Hopefully the other 6 don't have to scrape around for money. (The anonymous Nigerian consortium fronted by Chris Nathaniel, an agent who handles media rights for Rio Ferdinand and John Terry among others, is not among them despite their claim, refuted by sources with knowledge of the negotiations, to have lodged a £300 million bid last week.) He must be a bit of a knob then really if thats the case as he keeps on saying they have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If there are indeed seven parties genuinely interested, that's very positive news. We can only hope Ashley cares enough about the club to only sell to someone who looks like they'll do good things for it. Not sure he'll give a fuck though. I'm not sure he should give a fuck either. Well if he is a man of integrity he'll still want the best future for an entity that matters hugely to hundreds of thousands of people rather than purposely not bothering out of spite. The problem is, money talks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If there are indeed seven parties genuinely interested, that's very positive news. We can only hope Ashley cares enough about the club to only sell to someone who looks like they'll do good things for it. Not sure he'll give a fuck though. Fingers crossed this is true http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/3717635.More_bidders_waiting_in_the_wings_for_Magpies/ 'While the sportswear magnate will not sell unless he is able to recoup the £250m he has invested in buying out the former regime and reducing Newcastle’s debt, sources close to the negotiating process claim he will not sell to the highest bidder unless guarantees relating to the level of financial backing beyond the purchase price are met. ' Aye, that's what I'd seen elsewhere to make me think he cared. He could have a soft spot for the club at the same time as thinking the fans are illiterate cunts who don't know what side their bread is buttered on, couldn't he? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edd Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If there are indeed seven parties genuinely interested, that's very positive news. We can only hope Ashley cares enough about the club to only sell to someone who looks like they'll do good things for it. Not sure he'll give a fuck though. I'm not sure he should give a fuck either. Well if he is a man of integrity he'll still want the best future for an entity that matters hugely to hundreds of thousands of people rather than purposely not bothering out of spite. The problem is, money talks. I agree with you Dave and hope he does because he'll go up in my estimations if that's true, but given the way those same fans have treated him recently I wouldn't blame him for selling to the highest bidder and sod the consequences. If that is the case then "we" really do only have ourselves to blame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If there are indeed seven parties genuinely interested, that's very positive news. We can only hope Ashley cares enough about the club to only sell to someone who looks like they'll do good things for it. Not sure he'll give a fuck though. I'm not sure he should give a fuck either. Well if he is a man of integrity he'll still want the best future for an entity that matters hugely to hundreds of thousands of people rather than purposely not bothering out of spite. The problem is, money talks. I agree with you Dave and hope he does because he'll go up in my estimations if that's true, but given the way those same fans have treated him recently I wouldn't blame him for selling to the highest bidder and sod the consequences. If that is the case then "we" really do only have ourselves to blame. Hmm, yes and no IMO. The fans perhaps went overboard but they were well within their rights to react if you ask me. If he sells to the highest bidder without any consideration for the club's future I don't think it can be squarely laid at the fans' feet. Anyway, I don't want to get into that again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Money will talk, but if he does go for a deal which has the club's best interests at heart does that mean he wishes to maintain some sort of relationship with us - even just attending matches ? Anyway it's going to be Arabs. You heard it here first (or maybe not). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Btw I think Ashley has maybe copped for a lot of frustrations built up over the last few years, regardless of who has been in charge. We were promised and hoped for a brighter future when the takeover happened (and many including me bought into that fully) and it's failed to materialise. The same old farcical situations have arisen, and to compound it a much-loved manager left the club for whatever reason. People in general had simply had enough of being taken for a ride, so they lashed out. It was perhaps unfortunate that it was the new guy who caught it full in the face, but it had been coming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If the club was that healthy financially then i'm astonished we didn't spend more on transfers this summer. It increasingly appears that that was never the plan..... Admit it, you didn't even read the report did you? If you mean the Telegraph article, yes i did. Not a whiz with figures by any means but the article says the club is on healthier footing, especially going forward into the future, debts down or consolidated, etc. If so, i would want to know why we seemed to have such a tight transfer budget, unless the plan was to sell the club soon. What am i missing? Genuine question btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Bollocks are we making a profit. Mike Ashley's £20m a year is the only thing keeping us afloat. based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. Putting two statements together to create an argument relies on logic, something missing from that post. The Telegraph article is clearly based on a copy of the Seymour Pierce report and if you'd been following the story closely you'd have noticed that the Telegraph have had the inside track on this story before the other majors. Personally, i reckon the article is correct as its based on FSA compliant documentation. If Seymour Pierce were distibuting financial documentation at odds with the accounts the'd be comitting fraud. I'm lost. Are you saying you think we made a £3.5m profit or a £33m loss? Whatever Seymour Pierce are saying about the finances of the club is more accurate than the internet musings of a non-qualified fan who thinks business debt and household debt work the same way. Not sure than answers your question but thats my position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Bollocks are we making a profit. Mike Ashley's £20m a year is the only thing keeping us afloat. based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. Putting two statements together to create an argument relies on logic, something missing from that post. The Telegraph article is clearly based on a copy of the Seymour Pierce report and if you'd been following the story closely you'd have noticed that the Telegraph have had the inside track on this story before the other majors. Personally, i reckon the article is correct as its based on FSA compliant documentation. If Seymour Pierce were distibuting financial documentation at odds with the accounts the'd be comitting fraud. I'm lost. Are you saying you think we made a £3.5m profit or a £33m loss? Whatever Seymour Pierce are saying about the finances of the club is more accurate than the internet musings of a non-qualified fan who thinks business debt and household debt work the same way. Not sure than answers your question but thats my position. I think Mr Pierce is being slightly naughty here - as you would expect him to if you had asked him to sell the club... Loss per accounts (33m) Add back interest 7m Add back ammortisation 23m Add back loss of player sales 2m Gives you an 'operating loss' - i.e loss from day to day activities of less than £500k The depreciation charge for the year was £3.5million, adding this back gives you a 'cash operating profit' of just over £3m. Where he has been a bit naughty in getting to this number is including the compensation for Michael Owen's injury (£6.75m) So both numbers are correct, just depends on what definition of profit you want. Personally I don't think either of the numbers should be used in describing the state of the club, but thats just me (oh and not directly quoting you Chez, just carrying on the conversation) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Bollocks are we making a profit. Mike Ashley's £20m a year is the only thing keeping us afloat. based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. Putting two statements together to create an argument relies on logic, something missing from that post. The Telegraph article is clearly based on a copy of the Seymour Pierce report and if you'd been following the story closely you'd have noticed that the Telegraph have had the inside track on this story before the other majors. Personally, i reckon the article is correct as its based on FSA compliant documentation. If Seymour Pierce were distibuting financial documentation at odds with the accounts the'd be comitting fraud. I'm lost. Are you saying you think we made a £3.5m profit or a £33m loss? Whatever Seymour Pierce are saying about the finances of the club is more accurate than the internet musings of a non-qualified fan who thinks business debt and household debt work the same way. Not sure than answers your question but thats my position. I think Mr Pierce is being slightly naughty here - as you would expect him to if you had asked him to sell the club... Loss per accounts (33m) Add back interest 7m Add back ammortisation 23m Add back loss of player sales 2m Gives you an 'operating loss' - i.e loss from day to day activities of less than £500k The depreciation charge for the year was £3.5million, adding this back gives you a 'cash operating profit' of just over £3m. Where he has been a bit naughty in getting to this number is including the compensation for Michael Owen's injury (£6.75m) So both numbers are correct, just depends on what definition of profit you want. Personally I don't think either of the numbers should be used in describing the state of the club, but thats just me (oh and not directly quoting you Chez, just carrying on the conversation) I wasnt sure if either of them made sense either, hence why i didnt answer UV's question directly. I think we can conclude the club is financially better off now though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Bollocks are we making a profit. Mike Ashley's £20m a year is the only thing keeping us afloat. based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. Putting two statements together to create an argument relies on logic, something missing from that post. The Telegraph article is clearly based on a copy of the Seymour Pierce report and if you'd been following the story closely you'd have noticed that the Telegraph have had the inside track on this story before the other majors. Personally, i reckon the article is correct as its based on FSA compliant documentation. If Seymour Pierce were distibuting financial documentation at odds with the accounts the'd be comitting fraud. I'm lost. Are you saying you think we made a £3.5m profit or a £33m loss? Whatever Seymour Pierce are saying about the finances of the club is more accurate than the internet musings of a non-qualified fan who thinks business debt and household debt work the same way. Not sure than answers your question but thats my position. I don't know who you are referring to here. But if its anything to do with me I am qualified and all I did was quote the loss from the published accounts and even provided a link to those accounts which have been audited by Ernst and Young. I made no reference to debt (whether household or otherwise). If your comment wasn't anything to do with me please ignore what I have just saiid. Seymour Pierce are trying to assist Ashley in selling the club, their presentation of the financial information will be done with that objective in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 However Seymour Pierce present the information, I would think that any buyer will have their own exhaustive investigation performed - unlike Ashley who seems to have been caught out by the amount of debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Bollocks are we making a profit. Mike Ashley's £20m a year is the only thing keeping us afloat. based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. Putting two statements together to create an argument relies on logic, something missing from that post. The Telegraph article is clearly based on a copy of the Seymour Pierce report and if you'd been following the story closely you'd have noticed that the Telegraph have had the inside track on this story before the other majors. Personally, i reckon the article is correct as its based on FSA compliant documentation. If Seymour Pierce were distibuting financial documentation at odds with the accounts the'd be comitting fraud. I'm lost. Are you saying you think we made a £3.5m profit or a £33m loss? Whatever Seymour Pierce are saying about the finances of the club is more accurate than the internet musings of a non-qualified fan who thinks business debt and household debt work the same way. Not sure than answers your question but thats my position. I don't know who you are referring to here. But if its anything to do with me I am qualified and all I did was quote the loss from the published accounts and even provided a link to those accounts which have been audited by Ernst and Young. I made no reference to debt (whether household or otherwise). If your comment wasn't anything to do with me please ignore what I have just saiid. Seymour Pierce are trying to assist Ashley in selling the club, their presentation of the financial information will be done with that objective in mind. No, it wasnt aimed at you. They cant lie about the club as that would be fraud. Is about the only point i've got on this tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Bollocks are we making a profit. Mike Ashley's £20m a year is the only thing keeping us afloat. based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. Putting two statements together to create an argument relies on logic, something missing from that post. The Telegraph article is clearly based on a copy of the Seymour Pierce report and if you'd been following the story closely you'd have noticed that the Telegraph have had the inside track on this story before the other majors. Personally, i reckon the article is correct as its based on FSA compliant documentation. If Seymour Pierce were distibuting financial documentation at odds with the accounts the'd be comitting fraud. I'm lost. Are you saying you think we made a £3.5m profit or a £33m loss? Whatever Seymour Pierce are saying about the finances of the club is more accurate than the internet musings of a non-qualified fan who thinks business debt and household debt work the same way. Not sure than answers your question but thats my position. I don't know who you are referring to here. But if its anything to do with me I am qualified and all I did was quote the loss from the published accounts and even provided a link to those accounts which have been audited by Ernst and Young. I made no reference to debt (whether household or otherwise). If your comment wasn't anything to do with me please ignore what I have just saiid. Seymour Pierce are trying to assist Ashley in selling the club, their presentation of the financial information will be done with that objective in mind. No, it wasnt aimed at you. They cant lie about the club as that would be fraud. Is about the only point i've got on this tbh. OK 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