Newcastle United Finances - 2008 Accounts Recently Filed

[Mick]

 

Also we don't know that he hasn't already personally borrowed to fund what has happened so far, and how much of his wealth he may have used as collateral. Please don't get me wrong here I don't know any more about Ashley's personal finances than anyone else on this board. But there is an assumption going round that Ashley has a choice as to what he invests in the club. That may well be true but at present there is no evidence to suggest it is. Everything that has happened so far indicates he's got limited funds.

 

I agree that we don't know about Ashley's personal finances, he could have invested everything with Madoff for all we know.  What we can be almost sure of is that he'll have had very little at his disposal because he'll have had it invested and working for him.

[quayside]

 

I don't think anyone can answer that because we don't know what the finances look like as of now, the only information we have is historical. But based on what we do know the club needed £30 million of new cash coming in just to survive during the year to 30 June. There was also a further £10 million put in shortly after 30 June.

 

How bad a situation that is depends on the extent to which Ashley is willing or is able to fund it. It is a question that should be put to him - if he'd answer it. I can't see anything that has happened since 30 June that would make the financial situation significantly better, if anything I would expect club income to be down (lower pie and pint sales, shirts, non season ticket seat sales etc).

 

Surely not having to pay a further £8 million in interest payments, no further £5 million payments to ex managers and making an £8-£10 million profit in the transfer market would make things significantly better.  I mean assuming Keegan isn't going to win some kind of case against Newcastle, which I don't see happening.

 

Well purely from a cash perspective it seems that most transfer deals are funded by stage payments so the effect of any cash income on player sales will be flattened. It also means that Ashley has still been paying for Martins, Duff  and maybe even Owen. No interest payments is a saving. But as Mick said the decision on Jonas hasn't been made yet and as you say there is the Keegan claim. I really can't see any significant factor that will have turned the cashflow round this year - certainly nothing that will have taken it to anywhere near a positive position.

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

Former Newcastle majority shareholders Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families made almost £146m from their time at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. (Guardian)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/7882800.stm

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Former Newcastle majority shareholders Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families made almost £146m from their time at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. (Guardian)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/7882800.stm

 

What, that can't be right? Mike Ashley is trousering the clubs money and Shepherd was just out to spend his personal wealth on making us a success!

 

Wasn't he?

 

 

[Bad Mongo]

No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W.

[TRon]

Former Newcastle majority shareholders Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families made almost £146m from their time at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. (Guardian)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/7882800.stm

 

What, that can't be right? Mike Ashley is trousering the clubs money and Shepherd was just out to spend his personal wealth on making us a success!

 

Wasn't he?

 

 

 

I don't think anyone minded SJH and Fantastic Fred milking the club while we were successful, but leaving the club £100m in debt while running off with a £146m swag bag is a bit nuch to stomach. Imagine if Ashley did that.

[Skirge]

Ashley still splashing the cash though...

Ashley bids for Blacks Leisure

 

1 hour ago

 

Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley has made an initial takeover approach for outdoor clothing firm Blacks Leisure.

 

Mr Ashley, who already has a 29.9% stake in Blacks, will face competition for the company from private equity group Lion Capital, according to The Times.

 

Lion Capital owns AS Adventure Group which operates the outdoor equipment and clothing chain Cotswold Outdoor.

 

Mr Ashley, who owns Newcastle United, was also reported to be interested in buying JJB Sports' struggling lifestyle division, to which the company is planning to appoint administrators.

 

The reports come after confirmation from Blacks on Tuesday that it had received approaches about a possible offer. Sports Direct was unavailable for comment.

 

The company said discussions were at an early stage and there was no certainty any offer would be made. As well as 258 Millets stores and 110 Blacks Outdoor sites, the group has 41 boardwear stores under the Freespirit brand and 12 O'Neill sites.

 

The announcement - which sent shares jumping nearly 50% - followed last month's profit warning when Blacks revealed more dire trading figures from its boardwear division.

 

Blacks said its core business performed well, but this was offset by a 14.9% fall in boardwear like-for-like sales in the six weeks to January 3. It said the boardwear decline meant operating profits for the group were likely to be below market expectations for the year to the end of February.

 

Blacks has revived its outdoor division by rolling out new store formats and focusing more attention on merchandising and window displays. The company dates back to 1861, when sailor Thomas Black founded a sail-making company in Greenock, Scotland.

 

With the arrival of the steamship, the company moved into tent-making and developed into a leading outdoor retailer, renamed Blacks Outdoor in 1994.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g1I0n9RaKJUWRWHH8dBnTHCSSj-g

[Taylor Swift]

No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W.

 

So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley?

[Baggio]

No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W.

 

So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley?

 

It amusing that some people who defended Shepherd putting nothing in and taking millions out in dividends yet now expect Ashley to put his hand in his own pocket, even though he already has done to keep the club going.

[TRon]

No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W.

 

So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley?

 

He's a cockney cunt is a good a reason as any.

[Tooj]

No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W.

 

So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley?

 

I certainly don't expect that at all. Why didn't they just come out and say that the finances were in such a mess? That's my main issue, the lack of honesty and transparency.

[fredbob]

No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W.

 

So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley?

 

I certainly don't expect that at all. Why didn't they just come out and say that the finances were in such a mess? That's my main issue, the lack of honesty and transparency.

 

They did, quite a few times. They even used the metaphor "was about to collapse like a house of cards", I still dont think thats going to be an excuse for them to not invest, my guess is that they're genuinely dissapointed with the lack of major investment, it'll come, im sure of it.

 

 

[Guest toonlass]

Former Newcastle majority shareholders Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families made almost £146m from their time at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. (Guardian)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/7882800.stm

 

Sssshhh don't tell NE5, or he will spend the whole evening trying to work out a spin on it to make Shepherd and Hall the next Mother Theresa's. You know that Ashley is a money robbing bastard who hates Newcastle United, while Freddy Shepherd is just a gold old egg who brought european football to the club (despite almost killing us financially in the process).

[madras]

i'm sure freddy shepherd did once claim he was putting his personal cash into the club.

 

 

 

technically he was but he was just buying more shares.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest toonlass]

i'm sure freddy shepherd did once claim he was putting his personal cash into the club.

 

 

 

technically he was but he was just buying more shares.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe he meant he bought a pie and a pint at halftime?

[Mick]

i'm sure freddy shepherd did once claim he was putting his personal cash into the club.

 

 

 

technically he was but he was just buying more shares.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His actual claim was that he wasn't taking money out of the club when he was using his dividend to buy shares which was a lie.  He was buying those shares from shareholders so not a penny went to the club.

[ikri]

i'm sure freddy shepherd did once claim he was putting his personal cash into the club.

 

 

 

technically he was but he was just buying more shares.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His actual claim was that he wasn't taking money out of the club when he was using his dividend to buy shares which was a lie.  He was buying those shares from shareholders so not a penny went to the club.

 

Did he not stop buying additional shares back around 2004-2005?

 

I'm sure something was mentioned quite a while ago about it since he'd almost reached a point where had he bought many more shares in the club he'd have been forced to make an offer for the rest, something that he didn't have the funds for (unless he was to offer 1p per share)

[Mick]

 

Did he not stop buying additional shares back around 2004-2005?

 

I'm sure something was mentioned quite a while ago about it since he'd almost reached a point where had he bought many more shares in the club he'd have been forced to make an offer for the rest, something that he didn't have the funds for (unless he was to offer 1p per share)

 

He could have got around the rule which would have meant him having to bid for the club the same way as Sir John did.  He could have got his son or Brother to buy them instead.

[Guest neesy111]

he was buying shares of SJH, who was then keeping the cash for himself and not putting into the club

[quayside]

 

Did he not stop buying additional shares back around 2004-2005?

 

I'm sure something was mentioned quite a while ago about it since he'd almost reached a point where had he bought many more shares in the club he'd have been forced to make an offer for the rest, something that he didn't have the funds for (unless he was to offer 1p per share)

 

He could have got around the rule which would have meant him having to bid for the club the same way as Sir John did.  He could have got his son or Brother to buy them instead.

 

If anyone gets to own 30% of a public company they must make an offer for the whole lot. The shares held were actually owned by Shepherd Offshore Limited a company owned 50:50 by Fred and his brother. It tends to get forgotten that Bruce Shepherd in effect coined half of the proceeds of what is generally regarded as Shepherds wedge from the takeover. 

[Mick]

 

If anyone gets to own 30% of a public company they must make an offer for the whole lot. The shares held were actually owned by Shepherd Offshore Limited a company owned 50:50 by Fred and his brother. It tends to get forgotten that Bruce Shepherd in effect coined half of the proceeds of what is generally regarded as Shepherds wedge from the takeover. 

 

I know that the shares were owned mainly by Shepherd Offshore.

[indi]

he was buying shares of SJH, who was then keeping the cash for himself and not putting into the club

 

No, he wasn't, he was buying them on the open market, from other people.

[80]

he was buying shares of SJH, who was then keeping the cash for himself and not putting into the club

 

No, he wasn't, he was buying them on the open market, from other people.

 

And furthermore for the sake of argument, what would it have to do with anything if he was? Neither Shepherd nor anyone else was putting anything into the club. I could've bought shares off the Halls with fresh money, never mind money Shepherd voted to take out of the club, but the act wouldn't have made any difference to the club's prospects in itself.

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/feb/10/newcastle-united-mike-ashley-john-hall-freddy-shepherd

 

Ashley counts cost as old guard count their riches

 

• Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle

• Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing

David Conn  Wednesday 11 February 2009

 

Mike Ashley's Newcastle United are pressing on with their hesitant charm offensive this week, with Derek Llambias, the club's managing director, stressing in the local newspaper Ashley's revised commitment to the club, the money he has put in, and making an extended plea for owner and fans to go marching on together.

 

The tragedy of Ashley's tenure at Newcastle – if that is not too grand a word – is that this was the takeover which should have gone so right. There was concern elsewhere that new owners buying Premier League clubs were overseas financial speculators who knew nothing of football and, at Manchester United and Liverpool, were loading flourishing clubs with debt. Ashley was English, loves football and had a great deal of cash to spend – £929m made personally from selling shares when his Sports Direct company floated on the stockmarket in March 2007.

 

Newcastle's previous owners, the outgoing chairman Freddy Shepherd and his brother Bruce, and Sir John Hall, his son Douglas and their family bought their majority stakes relatively cheaply for an initial estimated £3.3m by 1992, just before football boomed comercially. They steered the club since the early 1990s from the old Second Division to runners-up spot in the Premier League and European football at a rebuilt, 52,000-seat St James' Park, yet mostly without garnering affection from the Toon Army faithful.

 

Accounts recently published by Newcastle, for the year to June 2008, show how much more generous Ashley's contribution has been already, with debts paid off and £100m loaned interest free to the club, compared to the millions relentlessly earned from the club by the Halls and Shepherds. When Sir John, the Gateshead shopping-centre magnate, took over Newcastle, he promised that the club would herald north-east regeneration and revive the "Geordie nation". Whatever the outcome of that, the club certainly became hugely profitable for Sir John and his family.

 

The Halls and Freddy Shepherd, who became a director alongside them, took no salaries for the first few years, then made up for it in 1996: Sir John was paid £836,803, Douglas Hall £793,612 and Shepherd £750,000. The accounts said the payment "recognises the fact that the directors received no remuneration prior to this year".

 

Shepherd, who staunchly defends his and the Halls' record of achievement at Newcastle, acknowledged that after the club floated on the stockmarket in 1997, they never contributed money for the club to invest. Before that, he said, they had guaranteed loans – documents at the time noted that £3.5m of the club's borrowings were guaranteed by the Halls' company, Cameron Hall, and that Cameron Hall had loaned the club money, at 11% interest.

 

The latest accounts provide a final reckoning on the Shepherds' and Halls' era because they sold all their shares to Ashley in June 2007 and have also resigned as directors. Altogether, the two families made an extraordinary £145.8m from their years of involvement – the Halls made £95.7m, the Shepherds £50.1m, mostly in salaries, dividends and ultimately selling their shares. The Halls had already made £20.35m from selling portions of their shares before Ashley paid £55m for their remaining stake. Shepherd did not want to sell – he had steadily bought more shares – but was effectively forced to – Ashley paid Freddie and Bruce £38m. Shepherd did not receive a pay-off when he resigned as a director in July 2007 but Douglas Hall, paid a £494,655 salary package in 2007 via a Newcastle United company registered in the tax haven of Gibraltar, was entitled to two years' pay in compensation and received an additional £1.17m when he resigned.

 

The unrest and despondency on Tyneside now make it easy to forget how Ashley's arrival put a smile on local faces, a new owner who watched matches with supporters, drank on the Bigg Market and had £1bn in his pocket, too.  The accounts show that having bought the club for £134m, Ashley paid off borrowings of £43m and cleared the overdraft, lending the club £100m on which he has chosen to waive interest. He has not declared a dividend nor paid himself a salary. In short, he has put a chunk of his considerable fortune on the line, and not taken a penny out.

 

Yet after the departure of the Geordie talisman Kevin Keegan as manager last September, Ashley's party ended. Fans infinitely preferred Keegan's charisma to the operations of Dennis Wise and the "cockney mafia" Ashley appointed in senior positions and, when their criticism hit, Ashley announced he wanted to sell. Only when no buyer could be found did Ashley announce in December that he was staying after all and wanted to "take the club forward together" with the fans. Llambias's local media work this week is part of that new project.

 

Ashley himself is still deeply reticent about talking to the press, so there is no public explanation about how a man canny enough to make almost £1bn cash from sports retailing allowed himself to have so hapless a time at Newcastle. His appointments, after his lawyer, Chris Mort, left following a year as the chairman, lacked experience of running football clubs. Llambias was previously a director of three London casinos, including Fifty, which Ashley is said to have visited. Tony Jimenez, briefly appointed vice-president responsible for player recruitment, was a director of a small sports agency. He is said to be a close friend of Wise and to have been key to Wise's appointment as director of football. One well-informed source said Ashley, Llambias and Jimenez were good friends; the three used to follow England and watch other football together, and Ashley wanted people he could trust in charge at Newcastle, because he believed football could be dodgy, particularly in its transfer dealings. Ashley is understood to have known Joe Kinnear, too, whom he appointed when Keegan left.

 

Some of what has happened can better be understood by considering the stage Ashley had reached in his life. He had worked in sports shops, then his retail company, since he left school at 16, then had finally made that £929m and, one friend says, wanted to enjoy himself. He bought Newcastle three months later almost on impulse, telling Mort to get the deal done without undertaking lengthy investigations of Newcastle's books. Supporting from the stands with his replica shirt on told of a man suddenly liberated, wanting to have a good time. Friends say he did want the club to be run well financially, hence the idea of appointing Wise to target young, good-value signings, but he seems to have underestimated how difficult football actually is on the inside and how public the ordure when it all goes wrong.

 

After a transfer window in which Shay Given and Charles N'Zogbia were sold, fans not profoundly cheered by the signings of Kevin Nolan, Ryan Taylor and Peter Lovenkrands will hope that Llambias's public appearance this week heralds Ashley getting a grip on the practical business of football. Otherwise, Freddy Shepherd's pointed observation – "anybody can buy a football club, not everybody can run one" – will continue to wound.

[Mr Logic]

Was just about to post the very same link..

 

• Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle

• Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing