fredbob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 100% agreed. Sorry, i thought you were talking specifically about the communication of debt repayment, my mistake. The communication in general is shite and that includes information about debt repayment, I'm not surprised that people forget about it when the club contradicts itself and people pick up on what is said. Fair point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 all of top earners have to be sold in the summer or released to get this club back on track owen, 6 million a year viduka, 3.5 million a year smith, 3.5 million geremi, 3.5 million butt, 2.5 million barton, 3.5 million 23.5 million a third of wage budget was spent on these wasters, a totally f***ing disgrace the best ashley can do is try to sell these players asap in my book You can add Duff to that list as another who drains the club of a hefty salary and offers very little.. thought there was someone who i forgot, well if we got rid of these would we really miss them not really tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 How do the wages paid to Mort, Wise, Jimenez, and Vetres fit into this? And what about Ashley, did he get some kind of dividend? have you read the figures?? how can ashley take a dividend when he is financing the running of the club at the moment??? company directors take dividends out of loss making companies all the time. Haven’t you seen the news recently? yes public company where they don't use there own money at all to buy the club etc the figures show ashley is keeping the club alive with his own cash, so why would he take money out then He hasn’t put any money in, he’s lent the club £100m. His own money. 70 for the debt, and 30 to keep the club going (plus another £10 million on top in June according to the OP). Ashley bought the club without checking the books and got well and truly shafted. If he hadn’t paid off the outstanding creditors he could have seen his £135m investment go down the pan. Yet your lauding him to the high heavens for saving his own skin and asking us to pay for it. Last years accounts count for s*** anyway. It’s next years accounts that will show if you’re blind faith in Ashley is warranted or sorely misguided. My money would be on the latter as losing lots of customers very rapidly tends to do bad things to the balance sheet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 How do the wages paid to Mort, Wise, Jimenez, and Vetres fit into this? And what about Ashley, did he get some kind of dividend? have you read the figures?? how can ashley take a dividend when he is financing the running of the club at the moment??? company directors take dividends out of loss making companies all the time. Haven’t you seen the news recently? yes public company where they don't use there own money at all to buy the club etc the figures show ashley is keeping the club alive with his own cash, so why would he take money out then He hasn’t put any money in, he’s lent the club £100m. His own money. 70 for the debt, and 30 to keep the club going (plus another £10 million on top in June according to the OP). Ashley bought the club without checking the books and got well and truly shafted. If he hadn’t paid off the outstanding creditors he could have seen his £135m investment go down the pan. Yet your lauding him to the high heavens for saving his own skin and asking us to pay for it. Last years accounts count for s*** anyway. It’s next years accounts that will show if you’re blind faith in Ashley is warranted or sorely misguided. My money would be on the latter as losing lots of customers very rapidly tends to do bad things to the balance sheet. Saving his own skin and newcastle united? As a fan surely you appreciate that? Wouldnt these accounts suggest that it might be a bit premature of these fans who are walking out on the club they "love"? There now seems to be a definite method to his madness? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Ashley bought the club without checking the books and got well and truly shafted. If he hadnt paid off the outstanding creditors he could have seen his £135m investment go down the pan. Yet your lauding him to the high heavens for saving his own skin and asking us to pay for it. Last years accounts count for s*** anyway. Its next years accounts that will show if youre blind faith in Ashley is warranted or sorely misguided. My money would be on the latter as losing lots of customers very rapidly tends to do bad things to the balance sheet. Ashley (not him personally) did go through the books and he knew about £70 plus million of debt, he didn't go into enough detail at that time to discover that £millions of future income had been spent or that certain loans had clauses for early repayment if the club was sold. The reason for him putting in extra money has nothing to do with checking or not checking the books. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Ashley bought the club without checking the books and got well and truly shafted. If he hadnt paid off the outstanding creditors he could have seen his £135m investment go down the pan. Yet your lauding him to the high heavens for saving his own skin and asking us to pay for it. Last years accounts count for s*** anyway. Its next years accounts that will show if youre blind faith in Ashley is warranted or sorely misguided. My money would be on the latter as losing lots of customers very rapidly tends to do bad things to the balance sheet. Ashley (not him personally) did go through the books and he knew about £70 plus million of debt, he didn't go into enough detail at that time to discover that £millions of future income had been spent or that certain loans had clauses for early repayment if the club was sold. The reason for him putting in extra money has nothing to do with checking or not checking the books. didnt SJH put a deadline on the sale of his shares as well, or have i made that up? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Thanks for posting this up, quayside; very interesting stuff. So is the club in a much healthier state now or not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 didnt SJH put a deadline on the sale of shares as well, or have i made that up? Ashley had very little time to decide to buy the club, Sir John said it was for club stability that he didn't want anything to get into the public domain before a sale was agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gleebals Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 These figures at least clear some things up a little, none more so than our lack of spending in the transfer window. We are loaded up to the hilt with over paid, under performers - we always have been to an extent. The old get rich quick "sheppard" mentality. The notion of buying young, building a big base for the future seems a solid idea looking at the shit we are in. Get Owen, Viduka, Geremi and Smith off the books ASAP and bring in some youth. You cannot win anything with kids is bollocks. Okay, our kids maybe. I just do not think Kinnear, even with his time at Wengers side will ever put his faith in kids - so our policy with our current manager is doomed to fail. The sooner we get over the fact we are not going to sign 5 £5m plus players the better. We were spoilt with all the £15m signings of the past which actually got us the grand sum of fuck all and a load of debt. Keegan clearly would not have fitted into this structure, that is clear as day now. He need big money and would probably have brought a whole loads of Duff Butts.. Some how we fight relegation and then we really need a new strategy. Villa would be a good place to learn from me thinks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 so he's not paid the debt off he's just made us indebted to him instead. 'great bloke' 2.2m loss, so basically breaking even, take into account not paying debt repayments and we're looking at a tidy profit. I'm sorry but that is possibly the worst post I think you have ever posted on here. Of course he was expecting payback for his loan, we all knew that from day one that if he was a sensible businessman, the money was only going to be given in an assumption that the £100m was going to be given back to him via an increased valuation of the club. And quaysides OP makes it clear that he has underwritten a £20m loss in the past year, hence giving that £20m a year he promised. With that in mind, it is clear that it is unrealistic to expect anyone coming in to do much difference unless they are genuine multi-billionaires who want some personal glory. All Ashley's faults must therefore by with regards to his handling of management affairs, as opposed lack of investment. Sorry mate, but how many times have we heard people praise ashley for putting his hand in his pocket to clear our debts? a thousand times? ten thousand times? this is just a big YOURE WRONG to all those ashley arse lickers. funny how great financial brains like LLLO missed that one, yet i suggested it over a year ago. clearing debt can be great if the club is up for sale as it means the new owners dont have to address that and inherit a club with a good balance sheet. this doesnt apply in our case as ashley wants this money paid to him. it can be good for a second reason - avoiding interest and loan repayments means money can be put back into the club for the manager to spend - once again, this doesnt apply to us. for us fans, you know, people who watch football being played on a football pitch, it can be good if having a reduced debt consequently improves our on field performance. i dont need to tell you that this has not happened. the £20m loss is primarily player amortisation, a paper loss. if owen moves into the last year of his contract the club would lose, say, £4m from the value of a year of his tenure at the club, something restricted to the balance sheets rather than cash flowing out of the club. in fact, £17.8m of that £20m is player amortisation. as with previous accounts which saw us make something like a £30m loss, this was reduced to £300,000 once amortisation and trading was taken out of the equation. the club is making a small loss, nothing substantial, which is no suprise considering how poorly the club has been ran on the field in shepherd's final years and the entirety of ashley's reign. the way to improve this is to invest in the managerial & playing staff. any business that wants to move forward has to go into debt, you have to make expenditures in the short-term to reap the rewards in the medium to long term. if ashley is not prepared to do this he should bugger off. trying to run a premiership club on a shoestring is counter-productive - you end up in situations like the one we are in currently, and it could get worse. those who like to defend ashley any chance they get need to wake up and realise this. Not that I don't agree Ashley has to invest in the squad, but if he doesn't want to dip his hand in his pocket, for him to bugger off, doesn't he need someone willing to buy the club for that to happen? aye. sadly that's not going to happen (not least because of his insistence on recouping his loan in one go). I had promised myself that I was never going to respond to one of your posts ever again, but I feel the need to point out - as a few already have - that you haven't got the first fucking clue what you're on about. "...recouping his loan in one go" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The other question is, if amortisation as a cost is due to the players' values decreasing based on their original contracts, surely this would happen whoever the owner, whatever the year? If Owen at £16m goes down £4m per year, doesn't that mean he went down £4m last year and also the same this year? Unless we've stated this year that the players we own have depreciated in value more than previously? But what would be the purpose of deliberately making the accounts look worse through pessimism? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Ashley bought the club without checking the books and got well and truly shafted. If he hadn’t paid off the outstanding creditors he could have seen his £135m investment go down the pan. Yet your lauding him to the high heavens for saving his own skin and asking us to pay for it. Last years accounts count for s*** anyway. It’s next years accounts that will show if you’re blind faith in Ashley is warranted or sorely misguided. My money would be on the latter as losing lots of customers very rapidly tends to do bad things to the balance sheet. Ashley (not him personally) did go through the books and he knew about £70 plus million of debt, he didn't go into enough detail at that time to discover that £millions of future income had been spent or that certain loans had clauses for early repayment if the club was sold. The reason for him putting in extra money has nothing to do with checking or not checking the books. If you insist. It only makes him an even bigger fool. The business needed capital investment. Ashley’s like a man who bought a flashy car but can’t afford the petrol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The other question is, if amortisation as a cost is due to the players' values decreasing based on their original contracts, surely this would happen whoever the owner, whatever the year? If Owen at £16m goes down £4m per year, doesn't that mean he went down £4m last year and also the same this year? Unless we've stated this year that the players we own have depreciated in value more than previously? But what would be the purpose of deliberately making the accounts look worse through pessimism? Dave, have a look here: http://moneyterms.co.uk/depreciation/ This is about depreciation, but amortisation is basically depreciation of intangible assets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Ashley bought the club without checking the books and got well and truly shafted. If he hadn’t paid off the outstanding creditors he could have seen his £135m investment go down the pan. Yet your lauding him to the high heavens for saving his own skin and asking us to pay for it. Last years accounts count for s*** anyway. It’s next years accounts that will show if you’re blind faith in Ashley is warranted or sorely misguided. My money would be on the latter as losing lots of customers very rapidly tends to do bad things to the balance sheet. Ashley (not him personally) did go through the books and he knew about £70 plus million of debt, he didn't go into enough detail at that time to discover that £millions of future income had been spent or that certain loans had clauses for early repayment if the club was sold. The reason for him putting in extra money has nothing to do with checking or not checking the books. If you insist. It only makes him an even bigger fool. The business needed capital investment. Ashley’s like a man who bought a flashy car but can’t afford the petrol. Its nothing of the sort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The other question is, if amortisation as a cost is due to the players' values decreasing based on their original contracts, surely this would happen whoever the owner, whatever the year? If Owen at £16m goes down £4m per year, doesn't that mean he went down £4m last year and also the same this year? Unless we've stated this year that the players we own have depreciated in value more than previously? But what would be the purpose of deliberately making the accounts look worse through pessimism? The player depreciation should be the same no matter who was running the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yeah, I get the principle Indi, I just don't see why amortation this year is worse than any other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The other question is, if amortisation as a cost is due to the players' values decreasing based on their original contracts, surely this would happen whoever the owner, whatever the year? If Owen at £16m goes down £4m per year, doesn't that mean he went down £4m last year and also the same this year? Unless we've stated this year that the players we own have depreciated in value more than previously? But what would be the purpose of deliberately making the accounts look worse through pessimism? The player depreciation should be the same no matter who was running the club. What does it matter to this debate then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 If you insist. It only makes him an even bigger fool. The business needed capital investment. Ashleys like a man who bought a flashy car but cant afford the petrol. Ashley isn't the only person who has seen his personal wealth reduce since buying the club, he hasn't got as much now as he had then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yeah, I get the principle Indi, I just don't see why amortation this year is worse than any other. It's not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The other question is, if amortisation as a cost is due to the players' values decreasing based on their original contracts, surely this would happen whoever the owner, whatever the year? If Owen at £16m goes down £4m per year, doesn't that mean he went down £4m last year and also the same this year? Unless we've stated this year that the players we own have depreciated in value more than previously? But what would be the purpose of deliberately making the accounts look worse through pessimism? Not sure if this helps: There will inevitably be some discussion on here at some point about amortisation of players’ contracts and whether it should really count as a cost. In my opinion it should because if you ignore it you don’t reflect the money paid out for players. In other words if you ignore it you are basically saying we got Owen, Duff, Martins, Collo etc for nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What does it matter to this debate then? I'm not sure that it's a large part of the debate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Some questions/points We buy a player for 10M, he's given a 4 year deal. From a balance sheet perspective, his value decreases 2.5m/year for 4 years. So if we sell the player after 3 years for 6M the club would still record a "gain from sale of asset" of 3.5M right? 10-7.5 = 2.5 + 6 = 3.5??? Also if the parent company loans money to a sub, it has to have interest otherwise it isn't really a "loan" right? If the loan does have interest, the new owner would assume the loan payments as the new owner unless their is some kind of provision included in the sale agreement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What does it matter to this debate then? I'm not sure that it's a large part of the debate. Apart from for the people who want to magically erase it from the club's accounts so that the losses don't appear as bad and they can feel better about continuing to ignore the reality of the situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What does it matter to this debate then? I'm not sure that it's a large part of the debate. Apart from for the people who want to magically erase it from the club's accounts so that the losses don't appear as bad and they can feel better about continuing to ignore the reality of the situation. That's it, basically people saying you can't include the cost of buying players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Do the accounts show interest payments of over £8 million? 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