Newcastle United Finances - 2008 Accounts Recently Filed

[madras]

Are you comfortable with investing not paying the debt and still getting relegated? I imagine with high wages, high debt, lower revenue it'd be Ashley's repsponsibly to foot the entire bill.

 

Not paying what debt? I'm comfortable not giving Mike Ashley his money back yet, yes. I don't expect his meagre £600m  has him buying the Asda SmartPrice stuff just yet.

 

We won't agree because we have differing views of the squad. You think Ashley is going to get his chequebook out and that we'll stay up, I think he won't and we'll go down. We'll see in May - I simply can't get my head round the amount of people with their heads in the sand. One look at the form guide and the fixture list (available at all good paying fanzine websites) should show you that relegation is more likely than not at this moment in time. From that point of view, unless he can find a top class manager happy to be let around by the hand by Dennis Wise (and a witch doctor who can fix up Oba and Beye right this second), yes, I'd rather take the risk of strengthening and I don't give two f***s if Ashley has to foot the bill because as owner, it'll be his fault and his responsibility.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

Although if we sign a couple of decent players this window (as has been hinted) will it chage your view at all?

 

Not really. It's January 25th, signings are not looking likely and we're 2 points off 20th with a very difficult run-in. If we stay up I'm not going to praise him for saving us when he's the one who got us into this bother in the first place.

 

If he pushes on in the summer with a real manager and funds, I might think about putting up with him even if I don't trust him as far as I could throw him.

 

Sorry Wullie, but that's one of the most short sighted, narrow minded things I've ever read on here.

 

He is, man. Not the only one but most certainly the main culprit - like Shepherd, the man pulling the strings has to take the blame.

 

I know you like to defend him but when will you give up absolving him of blame? When we're lining up at Blackpool next season?

 

I've never absolved him of blame, he's made some monumental f*** ups.

 

Well then we agree. His monumental f*** ups have led us to where to we are now.

 

If you think he has led us there you're being incredibly naive.  We were well on the way before he even got involved.  That's like blaming Ken Bates for Leeds being in League 1.

 

I don't agree, I think he's done the majority of the damage and accelerated the slide (and it was already a slide, although we had finished 7th a year earlier, so by no means an unstoppable one). He's been here the same time as Lerner has at Villa and they were in a very similar state.

 

We were in a horrendous state financially but he paid most of that off as soon as he got here so what else is there to look at in terms of what has done the damage?

 

Aye he's paid it off which is something Lerner didn't have to do at Villa, amazing you can't see the difference between the state of the two clubs.  All due to a few years of horrendus financial mismanagement.  The fact is the rot set in long before Ashley arrived.

 

Since Ashley came in we've also had Mort, Keegan & Llambias doing the day to day running of the club and until we know the full facts the three of them are potentially just as culpable as he is.

 

Was having to pay the debts off due to financial mismanagement or due to Ashley not doing his homework? I accept that a certain amount of the debts had to be paid with his own money because we were operating at a loss but:

 

a) the majority seems to have been the stadium loan, which is pure and simply Ashley not doing due diligence. That's his fault.

 

and b) did he have to pay all the debts off in one whack? Couldn't he have just paid the agreed repayments rather than paying them all off, which is what Lerner started doing despite their very similar debts? I don't know the answer to that, you should know better than me.

 

Re: the people at the top, Ashley hired them, so he has to carry the can.

 

The bit in bold is over-exaggerated a lot more than it should be tbh, people go on as if he didn't even get a copy of the accounts before making the decision to purchase. 

The question that people neglect to ask is who tied the club into that change of ownership clause & why?  The answer being to protect their investment despite the fact that it was going to potentially f*** any new investor over, regardless of whether they knew about it or not.

 

The level of the debt & the structure of it is down to financial mismanagement without a doubt.

So how did he miss the £70m debt?

 

 

He didn't.

So why is there no money to spend on avoiding relegation?

 

Because the club is a loss making operation.

so what?

and thereby endeth the thread.

 

His point is that other clubs are making losses as well and are still spending to ensure safety/push on for Europe as most reacently illustrated by Villa - why is that so stupid a point?

What the three monkeys seem to be saying is that Ashley checked the books, noted the £70m debt and bought our club in the full knowledge he wouldn’t have enough money to fund some much need squad strengthening.

 

Irresponsible doesn’t do it justice.

alternativly we could have been 100mill in debt,quite possibly in the championship (imo thats where allardyce was headed) with owen,geremi etc's wages still to fund regardless of wethere we had them on the books or not.

[Guest fading star]

We are £100m in debt and quite possibly looking at playing in the championship next season.

[madras]

We are £100m in debt and quite possibly looking at playing in the championship next season.

the debt is owed to the person who owns the club as opposed to previously when the debt was owed to banks etc.

 

 

one is a lot more risky than the other.

[Wullie]

We are £100m in debt and quite possibly looking at playing in the championship next season.

the debt is owed to the person who owns the club as opposed to previously when the debt was owed to banks etc.

 

 

one is a lot more risky than the other.

 

Indeed, so why is Ashley treating it as the opposite?

[indi]

Sorry, but some people, lots of people, are living in cloud-cuckoo-land! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, but wasn't Doug Ellis notoriously stingy with the money whilst he was in charge and ran a very tight financial ship? Without being an expert on Villa, that's my understanding of it anyway. Fat Fred on the other hand was anything but stingy with the money and ran a notoriously extravagant financial mess, as has been shown beyond all doubt by these accounts.

 

Therefore to compare Lerner taking over Villa with Ashley taking over us, is total lunacy.

 

To use a metaphor, Ellis and Villa were like a business man who owned a reasonably large well maintained detached house and Fat Fred was Lord "Fucking" Fulford living in his dilapidated stately home. Our house might look bigger and more impressive from a distance, but when you actually go in you'll see the roof leaks, the walls are damp and there's bats living in the belfry. If you go round Villa's house it's not as big and it looks nowhere near as impressive from the outside, but it's got all mod-cons, it's fully double-glazed, has an indoor swimming pool and there's a shit load of land out back with planning permission to build on. We've been papering over the cracks for years and now that Ashley's come in and poked away at it a little the whole fucking thing's come down around his ears. Whereas Lerner can afford to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in on improving things, knowing that the club is financially viable on its own, Ashley's having to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in (and more besides) keeping the club's head above the water. It doesn't matter if Villa take on a little bit of debt because the club can afford to make the repayments, we on the other hand can't afford anything as we are making a huge fucking loss and have been for a number of years.

 

Is it really that hard to understand!?!

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Sorry, but some people, lots of people, are living in cloud-cuckoo-land! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, but wasn't Doug Ellis notoriously stingy with the money whilst he was in charge and ran a very tight financial ship? Without being an expert on Villa, that's my understanding of it anyway. Fat Fred on the other hand was anything but stingy with the money and ran a notoriously extravagant financial mess, as has been shown beyond all doubt by these accounts.

 

Therefore to compare Lerner taking over Villa with Ashley taking over us, is total lunacy.

 

To use a metaphor, Ellis and Villa were like a business man who owned a reasonably large well maintained detached house and Fat Fred was Lord "Fucking" Fulford living in his dilapidated stately home. Our house might look bigger and more impressive from a distance, but when you actually go in you'll see the roof leaks, the walls are damp and there's bats living in the belfry. If you go round Villa's house it's not as big and it looks nowhere near as impressive from the outside, but it's got all mod-cons, it's fully double-glazed, has an indoor swimming pool and there's a shit load of land out back with planning permission to build on. We've been papering over the cracks for years and now that Ashley's come in and poked away at it a little the whole fucking thing's come down around his ears. Whereas Lerner can afford to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in on improving things, knowing that the club is financially viable on its own, Ashley's having to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in (and more besides) keeping the club's head above the water. It doesn't matter if Villa take on a little bit of debt because the club can afford to make the repayments, we on the other hand can't afford anything as we are making a huge fucking loss and have been for a number of years.

 

Is it really that hard to understand!?!

 

Apparently so.

[indi]

We are £100m in debt and quite possibly looking at playing in the championship next season.

the debt is owed to the person who owns the club as opposed to previously when the debt was owed to banks etc.

 

 

one is a lot more risky than the other.

 

Indeed, so why is Ashley treating it as the opposite?

 

Because it's him who's shelled out the £100m, obviously!!

 

He is £100m down on where he was before he made the loan, that money's not come from some faceless bank it's come out of his own pocket, so whilst it's a good deal for the club, it's a bad deal for him personally, very bad in fact. I can't believe the bloke's getting shit for giving us £100m!! Fuck's sake some people are ungrateful!! Remind me never to lend any of you lot any money, you'd probably beat the shit out of me and steal my wallet immediately afterwards!

[Wullie]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

[GM]

Sorry, but some people, lots of people, are living in cloud-cuckoo-land! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, but wasn't Doug Ellis notoriously stingy with the money whilst he was in charge and ran a very tight financial ship? Without being an expert on Villa, that's my understanding of it anyway. Fat Fred on the other hand was anything but stingy with the money and ran a notoriously extravagant financial mess, as has been shown beyond all doubt by these accounts.

 

Therefore to compare Lerner taking over Villa with Ashley taking over us, is total lunacy.

 

To use a metaphor, Ellis and Villa were like a business man who owned a reasonably large well maintained detached house and Fat Fred was Lord "Fucking" Fulford living in his dilapidated stately home. Our house might look bigger and more impressive from a distance, but when you actually go in you'll see the roof leaks, the walls are damp and there's bats living in the belfry. If you go round Villa's house it's not as big and it looks nowhere near as impressive from the outside, but it's got all mod-cons, it's fully double-glazed, has an indoor swimming pool and there's a shit load of land out back with planning permission to build on. We've been papering over the cracks for years and now that Ashley's come in and poked away at it a little the whole fucking thing's come down around his ears. Whereas Lerner can afford to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in on improving things, knowing that the club is financially viable on its own, Ashley's having to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in (and more besides) keeping the club's head above the water. It doesn't matter if Villa take on a little bit of debt because the club can afford to make the repayments, we on the other hand can't afford anything as we are making a huge fucking loss and have been for a number of years.

 

Is it really that hard to understand!?!

 

Ooh, indi, I've got to hand it to you mate, you really are very, very good at this whole creating a vivid analogy to help spell it all out in a "Janet and John" style for us thickies.

 

Thanks mate.

[Jayson]

Sorry, but some people, lots of people, are living in cloud-cuckoo-land! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, but wasn't Doug Ellis notoriously stingy with the money whilst he was in charge and ran a very tight financial ship? Without being an expert on Villa, that's my understanding of it anyway. Fat Fred on the other hand was anything but stingy with the money and ran a notoriously extravagant financial mess, as has been shown beyond all doubt by these accounts.

 

Therefore to compare Lerner taking over Villa with Ashley taking over us, is total lunacy.

 

To use a metaphor, Ellis and Villa were like a business man who owned a reasonably large well maintained detached house and Fat Fred was Lord "f***ing" Fulford living in his dilapidated stately home. Our house might look bigger and more impressive from a distance, but when you actually go in you'll see the roof leaks, the walls are damp and there's bats living in the belfry. If you go round Villa's house it's not as big and it looks nowhere near as impressive from the outside, but it's got all mod-cons, it's fully double-glazed, has an indoor swimming pool and there's a s*** load of land out back with planning permission to build on. We've been papering over the cracks for years and now that Ashley's come in and poked away at it a little the whole f***ing thing's come down around his ears. Whereas Lerner can afford to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in on improving things, knowing that the club is financially viable on its own, Ashley's having to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in (and more besides) keeping the club's head above the water. It doesn't matter if Villa take on a little bit of debt because the club can afford to make the repayments, we on the other hand can't afford anything as we are making a huge f***ing loss and have been for a number of years.

 

Is it really that hard to understand!?!

 

Indi, i dont think anyones disagreeing with that.

 

The point is that Ashley was fully aware of all our debt when he went into it. 

 

A person who buys a house with the walls falling down who is either

 

A: Aware the walls are falling down or

B: didnt analyze the house enough to know that the walls were about to fall down

 

Cannot then blame anyone but themselves if they cannot afford to look after this house.

 

While we should be thankful that Ashley took us out of the mess Shepard created, i think many assume that there were probably other buyers around at that time who would have been better placed to own a team like Newcastle ?

[Baggio]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

 

Who? Villa?

[Wullie]

We are £100m in debt and quite possibly looking at playing in the championship next season.

the debt is owed to the person who owns the club as opposed to previously when the debt was owed to banks etc.

 

 

one is a lot more risky than the other.

 

Indeed, so why is Ashley treating it as the opposite?

 

Because it's him who's shelled out the £100m, obviously!!

 

He is £100m down on where he was before he made the loan, that money's not come from some faceless bank it's come out of his own pocket, so whilst it's a good deal for the club, it's a bad deal for him personally, very bad in fact. I can't believe the bloke's getting shit for giving us £100m!! Fuck's sake some people are ungrateful!! Remind me never to lend any of you lot any money, you'd probably beat the shit out of me and steal my wallet immediately afterwards!

 

He bought the club man, if he really thought he could just coin it in from the off, he's clearly lost his marbles. He was always going to have to invest. Lerner owes banks - high risk and he's still spending. Ashley doesn't owe anyone but himself and still prefers to risk our survival.

 

To borrow your analogy, if I buy a house in a state of disrepair then when I walk in, the roof falls on my head, it's my own fault for not bothering my arse to check how bad it was first.

[Guest fading star]

We are £100m in debt and quite possibly looking at playing in the championship next season.

the debt is owed to the person who owns the club as opposed to previously when the debt was owed to banks etc.

 

 

one is a lot more risky than the other.

 

Indeed, so why is Ashley treating it as the opposite?

 

Because it's him who's shelled out the £100m, obviously!!

 

He is £100m down on where he was before he made the loan, that money's not come from some faceless bank it's come out of his own pocket, so whilst it's a good deal for the club, it's a bad deal for him personally, very bad in fact. I can't believe the bloke's getting s*** for giving us £100m!! f***'s sake some people are ungrateful!! Remind me never to lend any of you lot any money, you'd probably beat the s*** out of me and steal my wallet immediately afterwards!

Makes you wonder why he bought the club at all.

 

[Wullie]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

 

Who? Villa?

 

Yeah.

[indi]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

 

Like I said, I'm not an expert on Villa, Brummie would probably be best to ask, but I assume that essentially Villa is a profitable business and that the extra money Lerner is prepared to put in is enough to finance any debt they take on and/or pay for additional spending.

[Baggio]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

 

Who? Villa?

 

Yeah.

 

Not sure if they will have to make repayments if the money was put in by Lerner, the advantage he has was that he bought a well ran club with little debt for something like £60 million, he could easily sell it and get back everything he's put in so there's little risk from his point of view.

[GM]

I think the point that really defies any sort of post-rationalisation in all this is that Ashley never completed due diligence. As Jayson and Wullie have both now said, quite rightly, anyone who bought a house without doing a survey deserves anything that comes their way after that in all fairness, and should bear the full cost and responsibility for what happens afterwards.

[Wullie]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

 

Who? Villa?

 

Yeah.

 

Not sure if they will have to make repayments if the money was put in by Lerner, the advantage he has was that he bought a well ran club with little debt for something like £60 million, he could easily sell it and get back everything he's put in so there's little risk from his point of view.

 

I wouldn't say £63m of debt was 'little' though.

 

They will suffer a massive hit to their accounts through amortisation as we've established, their ticket prices are lower than us, their gates are lower and they have spent £100m on transfers and they'll have a hefty wage bill.

 

How are they in a great state and we are "crippled" financially? Is it purely the owner's ambition in each case? These are genuine questions I don't know the answer to.

[colinmk]

Sorry, but some people, lots of people, are living in cloud-cuckoo-land! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, but wasn't Doug Ellis notoriously stingy with the money whilst he was in charge and ran a very tight financial ship? Without being an expert on Villa, that's my understanding of it anyway. Fat Fred on the other hand was anything but stingy with the money and ran a notoriously extravagant financial mess, as has been shown beyond all doubt by these accounts.

 

Therefore to compare Lerner taking over Villa with Ashley taking over us, is total lunacy.

 

To use a metaphor, Ellis and Villa were like a business man who owned a reasonably large well maintained detached house and Fat Fred was Lord "f***ing" Fulford living in his dilapidated stately home. Our house might look bigger and more impressive from a distance, but when you actually go in you'll see the roof leaks, the walls are damp and there's bats living in the belfry. If you go round Villa's house it's not as big and it looks nowhere near as impressive from the outside, but it's got all mod-cons, it's fully double-glazed, has an indoor swimming pool and there's a s*** load of land out back with planning permission to build on. We've been papering over the cracks for years and now that Ashley's come in and poked away at it a little the whole f***ing thing's come down around his ears. Whereas Lerner can afford to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in on improving things, knowing that the club is financially viable on its own, Ashley's having to spend the extra money he's prepared to put in (and more besides) keeping the club's head above the water. It doesn't matter if Villa take on a little bit of debt because the club can afford to make the repayments, we on the other hand can't afford anything as we are making a huge f***ing loss and have been for a number of years.

 

Is it really that hard to understand!?!

 

Indi, i dont think anyones disagreeing with that.

 

The point is that Ashley was fully aware of all our debt when he went into it. 

 

A person who buys a house with the walls falling down who is either

 

A: Aware the walls are falling down or

B: didnt analyze the house enough to know that the walls were about to fall down

 

Cannot then blame anyone but themselves if they cannot afford to look after this house.

 

While we should be thankful that Ashley took us out of the mess Shepard created, i think many assume that there were probably other buyers around at that time who would have been better placed to own a team like Newcastle ?

 

That's exactly it for me Jayson, it just makes Ashley look worse and worse for taking this on in the first place and then managing to get into this horrible mess.

[Dave]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

 

Who? Villa?

 

Yeah.

 

Not sure if they will have to make repayments if the money was put in by Lerner, the advantage he has was that he bought a well ran club with little debt for something like £60 million, he could easily sell it and get back everything he's put in so there's little risk from his point of view.

 

I wouldn't say £63m of debt was 'little' though.

 

They will suffer a massive hit to their accounts through amortisation as we've established, their ticket prices are lower than us, their gates are lower and they have spent £100m on transfers and they'll have a hefty wage bill.

 

How are they in a great state and we are "crippled" financially? Is it purely the owner's ambition in each case? These are genuine questions I don't know the answer to.

 

I think the club as a whole was about £60m, not the debt.

[Thespence]

Everyone forgetting the John Gregory years at Villa he was as mad as Soumess.

[Baggio]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

 

Who? Villa?

 

Yeah.

 

Not sure if they will have to make repayments if the money was put in by Lerner, the advantage he has was that he bought a well ran club with little debt for something like £60 million, he could easily sell it and get back everything he's put in so there's little risk from his point of view.

 

I wouldn't say £63m of debt was 'little' though.

 

They will suffer a massive hit to their accounts through amortisation as we've established, their ticket prices are lower than us, their gates are lower and they have spent £100m on transfers and they'll have a hefty wage bill.

 

How are they in a great state and we are "crippled" financially? Is it purely the owner's ambition in each case? These are genuine questions I don't know the answer to.

 

Were they £63 million in debt before Lerner took over?

[Wullie]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

 

Who? Villa?

 

Yeah.

 

Not sure if they will have to make repayments if the money was put in by Lerner, the advantage he has was that he bought a well ran club with little debt for something like £60 million, he could easily sell it and get back everything he's put in so there's little risk from his point of view.

 

I wouldn't say £63m of debt was 'little' though.

 

They will suffer a massive hit to their accounts through amortisation as we've established, their ticket prices are lower than us, their gates are lower and they have spent £100m on transfers and they'll have a hefty wage bill.

 

How are they in a great state and we are "crippled" financially? Is it purely the owner's ambition in each case? These are genuine questions I don't know the answer to.

 

I think the club as a whole was about £60m, not the debt.

 

Someone posted their financial results a few pages back showing that debt.

[Wullie]

How will they afford to make the repayments, indi? I genuinely don't understand (unless of course they quality for the CL).

 

Who? Villa?

 

Yeah.

 

Not sure if they will have to make repayments if the money was put in by Lerner, the advantage he has was that he bought a well ran club with little debt for something like £60 million, he could easily sell it and get back everything he's put in so there's little risk from his point of view.

 

I wouldn't say £63m of debt was 'little' though.

 

They will suffer a massive hit to their accounts through amortisation as we've established, their ticket prices are lower than us, their gates are lower and they have spent £100m on transfers and they'll have a hefty wage bill.

 

How are they in a great state and we are "crippled" financially? Is it purely the owner's ambition in each case? These are genuine questions I don't know the answer to.

 

Were they £63 million in debt before Lerner took over?

 

Dunno, I don't know if that's transfers or what it represents. It'll be a lot more than that now if it is.

[indi]

It may be worse than he thought it was when he bought it, but he was under no disillusions that it was going to need serious work, hence why he chose the steady strategy of gradual improvements year on year, the only people who thought it only needed a quick fix are the fans. The fans (and Keegan) are the ones who are not in touch with reality, not Ashley.