Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Here's a screen print of note 23, it's probably not good enough as it's not a link from a newspapers website but here goes, paragraph 3. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2069/note23.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
healthyaddiction Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Which bit is saying he took money out. I've read through it and looked at the third paragraph but can't see it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 If the amount put in is more than that taken out ... is it still really taking out? Semantic pedantry really. The real point is there's no factual basis for the kind of posts about Ashley pocketing everything from player sales that crop up here with annoying regularity. The fact is that he has taken money out of the club which goes against "Ashley has taken absolutely no money out of the club so far." Where the money came from that he did take out is anybodies guess but it did come out during the financial year so it had to come from somewhere. He hasn't been in a position to take much out because the club hasn't produced enough cash to pay the bills. We've been told that we're on our way to breaking even so nothing will stop him taking money out again, even if he has to put more in later, like he did during the year ending 30th June 2009. If you're right -- and the jury is out until you provide any kind of actual proof that you are -- then I agree that this destroys the literal sense of my statement. The general point I was making -- that it flies in the face of all available evidence to assert that we "know" that Ashley will "trouser" any money that might come in from the sale of Carroll -- remains, however, untouched. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 all that says is legal fees were paid and a fee given to the company for the use of Chris Mort for the year as chairman, par for the course i would have thought Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Here's a screen print of note 23, it's probably not good enough as it's not a link from a newspapers website but here goes, paragraph 3. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2069/note23.jpg Illegible here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Looks like he took out £1 million in repayment of his loan to the club (no interest), outstanding balance £111M compared with a high of £112M. Nothing wrong with that tbh. Mick did say he hadn't taken much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Here's a screen print of note 23, it's probably not good enough as it's not a link from a newspapers website but here goes, paragraph 3. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2069/note23.jpg You make a fine and valid point. Ozzie was factually incorrect. Still, the sentiment is reasonable. Considering the likes of Learner and the Boro fella charge interest on their mahosive loans which is something he has yet to have done, that sum is a pitance in comparison to be fair. He will take decent money out at some point, which he has every right to do, but has shown admirable restraint in that regard so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Ashley's no idiot. He knows we'll be offered £35m in a year or two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Looks like he took out £1 million in repayment of his loan to the club (no interest), outstanding balance £111M compared with a high of £112M. Nothing wrong with that tbh. Mick did say he hadn't taken much. It doesn't say that he had taken out £1 million as he had to put more in after he'd taken money out. If he did it then, which he did, nothing will stop him from doing it again in future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Looks like he took out £1 million in repayment of his loan to the club (no interest), outstanding balance £111M compared with a high of £112M. Nothing wrong with that tbh. Mick did say he hadn't taken much. It doesn't say that he had taken out £1 million as he had to put more in after he'd taken money out. If he did it then, which he did, nothing will stop him from doing it again in future. And he's well within his right to do that, £111M is a canny loan, especially as he isn't charging any interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Here's a screen print of note 23, it's probably not good enough as it's not a link from a newspapers website but here goes, paragraph 3. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2069/note23.jpg You make a fine and valid point. Ozzie was factually incorrect. Still, the sentiment is reasonable. Considering the likes of Learner and the Boro fella charge interest on their mahosive loans which is something he has yet to have done, that sum is a pitance in comparison to be fair. He will take decent money out at some point, which he has every right to do, but has shown admirable restraint in that regard so far. Actually scratch that (sorry Ozzie). Cheers Greg, so it was just reducing the loan? Can't see any issue with that really. Oh, and another thing, am I right in thinking that he hasn't even drawn out any salary from the club either? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 You make a fine and valid point. Ozzie was factually incorrect. Still, the sentiment is reasonable. Considering the likes of Learner and the Boro fella charge interest on their mahosive loans which is something he has yet to have done, that sum is a pitance in comparison to be fair. He will take decent money out at some point, which he has every right to do, but has shown admirable restraint in that regard so far. I'm sure that he will take money out in future and he does have every right. We have no reason to think that money generated through the transfer of players will be re-invested because he will probably think that he's already done his investing in the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 He took out £5m in 2008, put in £11m for 2009, and took out £1m in 2009. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 You make a fine and valid point. Ozzie was factually incorrect. Still, the sentiment is reasonable. Considering the likes of Learner and the Boro fella charge interest on their mahosive loans which is something he has yet to have done, that sum is a pitance in comparison to be fair. He will take decent money out at some point, which he has every right to do, but has shown admirable restraint in that regard so far. I'm sure that he will take money out in future and he does have every right. We have no reason to think that money generated through the transfer of players will be re-invested because he will probably think that he's already done his investing in the club. Pure speculation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 He took out £5m in 2008, put in £11m for 2009, and took out £1m in 2009. What the hell is he playing at? Some nefarious scheme to confudle the bankers no doubt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 In the light of the new evidence that has been brought to light during this discussion (thanks Mick!), I am happy to amend my original statement: People keep saying this. We "know" no such thing, What we DO know (those of us who have been paying attention, anyway) is that a) Ashley has put about £136.5 million into the club so far while just £1 million out*, and b) he has said that all money from player sales will go back into the squad, and that, from the accounts published so far, this has indeed been the case. *Assuming Greg's reading of Mick's illegible (to me) posting is correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Pure speculation. I agree that its speculation and I didn't try to pass it off as fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 In the light of the new evidence that has been brought to light during this discussion (thanks Mick!), I am happy to amend my original statement: People keep saying this. We "know" no such thing, What we DO know (those of us who have been paying attention, anyway) is that a) Ashley has put about £136.5 million into the club so far while just £1 million out*, and b) he has said that all money from player sales will go back into the squad, and that, from the accounts published so far, this has indeed been the case. *Assuming Greg's reading of Mick's illegible (to me) posting is correct. In the light of the new evidence that has been brought to light during this discussion (thanks Mick!), I am happy to amend my original statement: People keep saying this. We "know" no such thing, What we DO know (those of us who have been paying attention, anyway) is that a) Ashley has put about £136.5 million into the club so far while just £1 million out*, and b) he has said that all money from player sales will go back into the squad, and that, from the accounts published so far, this has indeed been the case. *Assuming Greg's reading of Mick's illegible (to me) posting is correct. So all the argument was about $1 million? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 "The club would like to make it clear for the very last time that Carroll is simply not for sale." The source went on to describe the bid from Tottenham as 'paltry in the current climate'. Love the way he worded that Harry is a bellend of magnificent proportions, the twat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 £23 million can never be considered paltry. Daft word to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 So all the argument was about $1 million? No the argument is about him taking money out of the club when it was wrongly claimed that he hadn't. It also wasn't $1 million, the £1 million difference is the amount that he'd put in by the end of the financial year and no reflection what he took out during the season as he'd put more in by the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 £23 million can never be considered paltry. Daft word to use. It is paltry. It's a fucking laughable amount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henke Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 The only thing that bugs me about that statement is why we felt the need to go to the press about it. If spurs made a bid, we turned it down, then fair enough. Us then taking it to the media seems like we're saying £23mil ain't enough, but if you up it a bit we might sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 So all the argument was about $1 million? No the argument is about him taking money out of the club when it was wrongly claimed that he hadn't. It also wasn't $1 million, the £1 million difference is the amount that he'd put in by the end of the financial year and no reflection what he took out during the season as he'd put more in by the end. That's semantics at best. If there were 4 chocolates on the table, I took 3 and put back 2 in a given day, then by the end of the day, I've only taken 1. Nobody else would say it differently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 The only thing that bugs me about that statement is why we felt the need to go to the press about it. If spurs made a bid, we turned it down, then fair enough. Us then taking it to the media seems like we're saying £23mil ain't enough, but if you up it a bit we might sell. or when word gets out that there was a bid and we haven't pubically denied it "Oooh they haven't denied it so they must be thinking about it" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts