Newcastle United Finances - 2008 Accounts Recently Filed

[Mick]

 

gates down 3856 and some of that will be fewer away fans spending on what for most is the longest away trip in the league. also we've some big home games left which will probably push the average up - mackems, man utd, arsenal, chelsea. some tickets have gone up in price since then too.

 

OK, I wasn't going to work out exactly how many the gates have gone down by but they are down and that means the money available to pay off debts is reduced.  I understand that we have a lot of bigger games coming up which may lift the average attendances so overall things may not end up looking as bad as they currently do regarding gates.

 

As for price increases, we had both increases and reductions and the source of gate money isn't relevant to where it goes.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

So how would you account for it in the accounts?

 

Putting his hand in his pocket is exactly what he has done.  He's taken £100m from his bank & cleared the clubs debt with the loan holders.

[Guest neesy111]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

that loan is against his company so it will be a liability against his holding business hence he has paid it off

[Dave]

We'll be reet next year anyway when the savings on the matchday staff and the 0844 money comes in.

[johnnypd]

Ashley has put £110 million of his own cash into the club to subsidise it, that's £106 million more than anybody else has ever put in.

 

That's all well and good (and we're all very grateful for him doing so if one supposes we were getting pretty close to trouble), but it doesn't help the here and now on the pitch does it?

 

How long will it excuse him of spending nothing on the first team?

 

but if he hadn't of put the money into the club would not exist as shepherd put in clause's so that the debt would be need to be repaid if a new owner takes charge

 

he needs to put cash in for signings, but he should be expecting more from what the current team are doing as he is bankrolling their wages basically and no wonder why it's 1 in, 1 out policy

 

we need a sound club behind the scene's before it can be successful on the pitch, the reverse happened at Leeds and look where they are now

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

that stadium debt went up from 45 million to 70 million with only interest being paid

 

while at the same time shepherd take home 30 million in divinded's from 2001 to 2006

 

strange trend of people deflecting attention onto shepherd when there's anything that doesnt show ashley is saintly light. i'm well aware of shepherd's faults, including disproportionate dividends, a warehouse in byker, money given to shit managers and so on, but i dont see what raking over the coals does for the discussion.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

We'll be reet next year anyway when the savings on the matchday staff and the 0844 money comes in.

 

I might phone up now to get the ball rolling.

[fredbob]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

Hold on, you think Ashley shouldnt gain credit for the debt repayment becasue it wasnt philantrathropic? It was argued many times over that the money would be added to the price of the club, by peiple who didnt want to credit Ashley.

[Guest neesy111]

 

gates down 3856 and some of that will be fewer away fans spending on what for most is the longest away trip in the league. also we've some big home games left which will probably push the average up - mackems, man utd, arsenal, chelsea. some tickets have gone up in price since then too.

 

OK, I wasn't going to work out exactly how many the gates have gone down by but they are down and that means the money available to pay off debts is reduced.  I understand that we have a lot of bigger games coming up which may lift the average attendances so overall things may not end up looking as bad as they currently do regarding gates.

 

As for price increases, we had both increases and reductions and the source of gate money isn't relevant to where it goes.

 

the figures will be better this season no doubt but still the club is spending 70% of all income on wages it would have been nearly 100% if it wasn't for the new tv deals that came into force

[Teasy]

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.

 

Yes but why not instead just look at what we paid for the likes of Coloccini ect vs what we made on players sold at the same time.  That's a better indicator of real money lost and what Ashley might have had to put in himself to keep the club debt free.  The fact is amortisation doesn't reflect real losses in this particular year.  As in the £17.8 million "loss" did not actually require Ashley to spend £17.8 million, because its a paper loss based on depreciation of players values who were bought 3 or 4 or even 5 years ago.

 

Cashflow my friend

 

Of course its obviously the right thing to look at long term when looking at the health of the company.  What I'm saying is that people here are talking about "oh we made a £20 million loss, so Ashley had to spend another £20 million to keep us out of debt" but that's not the case.  The majority of that loss was in effect a loss in value of the club due to a loss in value of assets.  No money actually had to be spent to cover this loss.

[Taylor Swift]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

He did put his hand into his pocket. The club is his. The holding company is his. The 'loan' is just a technicality. It would be different if were a PLC and he only owned a part because that would be a genuine loan but this is not the same. This is just him putting money from his other accounts into this account which can be equated to him putting money into the club.

 

The key point is also that he has not collected any interest payments for it, so it is just like giving money to the club. I don't know how you can twist it to say something else.

 

You can say that if we get sold, then presumably this money will be included in the price of the club and Ashley will recover it, but right now, he's 'given' us £70m to pay off the debt and sunk a further £30m in to help us get closer to breaking even, which we're still far away from doing.

[Guest neesy111]

Ashley has put £110 million of his own cash into the club to subsidise it, that's £106 million more than anybody else has ever put in.

 

That's all well and good (and we're all very grateful for him doing so if one supposes we were getting pretty close to trouble), but it doesn't help the here and now on the pitch does it?

 

How long will it excuse him of spending nothing on the first team?

 

but if he hadn't of put the money into the club would not exist as shepherd put in clause's so that the debt would be need to be repaid if a new owner takes charge

 

he needs to put cash in for signings, but he should be expecting more from what the current team are doing as he is bankrolling their wages basically and no wonder why it's 1 in, 1 out policy

 

we need a sound club behind the scene's before it can be successful on the pitch, the reverse happened at Leeds and look where they are now

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

that stadium debt went up from 45 million to 70 million with only interest being paid

 

while at the same time shepherd take home 30 million in divinded's from 2001 to 2006

 

strange trend of people deflecting attention onto shepherd when there's anything that doesnt show ashley is saintly light. i'm well aware of shepherd's faults, including disproportionate dividends, a warehouse in byker, money given to shit managers and so on, but i dont see what raking over the coals does for the discussion.

 

you talked about the debt which ashley was facing, it had gone completely out of control into a figure which no one had known, you made the point out

[Guest neesy111]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

He did put his hand into his pocket. The club is his. The holding company is his. The 'loan' is just a technicality. It would be different if were a PLC and he only owned a part because that would be a genuine loan but this is not the same. This is just him putting money from his other accounts into this account which can be equated to him putting money into the club.

 

The key point is also that he has not collected any interest payments for it, so it is just like giving money to the club. I don't know how you can twist it to say something else.

 

You can say that if we get sold, then presumably this money will be included in the price of the club and Ashley will recover it, but right now, he's 'given' us £70m to pay off the debt and sunk a further £30m in to help us get closer to breaking even, which we're still far away from doing.

 

ambromovich is doing exactly the same with chelsea, he holds a 600 million loan against his own companies

[Mick]

We'll be reet next year anyway when the savings on the matchday staff and the 0844 money comes in.

 

[Mick]

 

the figures will be better this season no doubt but still the club is spending 70% of all income on wages it would have been nearly 100% if it wasn't for the new tv deals that came into force

 

Agreed about the income to wages ratio, the wages went up but the percentage of income went down because of the Sky deal.

[johnnypd]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

So how would you account for it in the accounts?

 

Putting his hand in his pocket is exactly what he has done.  He's taken £100m from his bank & cleared the clubs debt with the loan holders.

 

okay, maybe we should call it 'putting his hand in his pocket on the condition that he gets back at least the amount he took out of his pocket.' people on here seemed to think of it as a donation, not what it actually is.

 

anyway, afk, donating to Oxfam on the condition that they give me all my money back in 4 years.

[johnnypd]

Ashley has put £110 million of his own cash into the club to subsidise it, that's £106 million more than anybody else has ever put in.

 

That's all well and good (and we're all very grateful for him doing so if one supposes we were getting pretty close to trouble), but it doesn't help the here and now on the pitch does it?

 

How long will it excuse him of spending nothing on the first team?

 

but if he hadn't of put the money into the club would not exist as shepherd put in clause's so that the debt would be need to be repaid if a new owner takes charge

 

he needs to put cash in for signings, but he should be expecting more from what the current team are doing as he is bankrolling their wages basically and no wonder why it's 1 in, 1 out policy

 

we need a sound club behind the scene's before it can be successful on the pitch, the reverse happened at Leeds and look where they are now

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

that stadium debt went up from 45 million to 70 million with only interest being paid

 

while at the same time shepherd take home 30 million in divinded's from 2001 to 2006

 

strange trend of people deflecting attention onto shepherd when there's anything that doesnt show ashley is saintly light. i'm well aware of shepherd's faults, including disproportionate dividends, a warehouse in byker, money given to shit managers and so on, but i dont see what raking over the coals does for the discussion.

 

you talked about the debt which ashley was facing, it had gone completely out of control into a figure which no one had known, you made the point out

 

not sure the stadium debt was £70m. going from the accounts at the end of the shepherd regime i think this was a mix of the expansion debt, NR overdraft of £17m plus a couple of other odds and ends.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

So how would you account for it in the accounts?

 

Putting his hand in his pocket is exactly what he has done.  He's taken £100m from his bank & cleared the clubs debt with the loan holders.

 

okay, maybe we should call it 'putting his hand in his pocket on the condition that he gets back at least the amount he took out of his pocket.' people on here seemed to think of it as a donation, not what it actually is.

 

anyway, afk, donating to Oxfam on the condition that they give me all my money back in 4 years.

 

Oxfam is a charity, giving money to a charity falls under a completely different set of accounting and tax rules.  You're making yourself look daft.

 

How would you account for it?

 

[Unbelievable]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

He did put his hand into his pocket. The club is his. The holding company is his. The 'loan' is just a technicality. It would be different if were a PLC and he only owned a part because that would be a genuine loan but this is not the same. This is just him putting money from his other accounts into this account which can be equated to him putting money into the club.

 

The key point is also that he has not collected any interest payments for it, so it is just like giving money to the club. I don't know how you can twist it to say something else.

 

You can say that if we get sold, then presumably this money will be included in the price of the club and Ashley will recover it, but right now, he's 'given' us £70m to pay off the debt and sunk a further £30m in to help us get closer to breaking even, which we're still far away from doing.

 

He is entitled to the interest though, and he can claim it whenever he sees fit including for periods in the past he hasn't claimed it for (with interest on top of interest I presume) is the way it has been explained earlier in the thread. Him not taking up the interest now is another technicality that doesn´t mean very much in the real world, just like this "20 million loss" and the "loan" itself.. It seems there are lies, statistics and then financial accounting..

[johnnypd]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

Hold on, you think Ashley shouldnt gain credit for the debt repayment becasue it wasnt philantrathropic? It was argued many times over that the money would be added to the price of the club, by peiple who didnt want to credit Ashley.

 

no, i dont think ashley needs to be praised in the way he was by some on here who believed he was some sort of saviour for doing that.

[fredbob]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

Hold on, you think Ashley shouldnt gain credit for the debt repayment becasue it wasnt philantrathropic? It was argued many times over that the money would be added to the price of the club, by peiple who didnt want to credit Ashley.

 

no, i dont think ashley needs to be praised in the way he was by some on here who believed he was some sort of saviour for doing that.

 

 

Where would we be without his financial input?

[indi]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off.

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what? Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

So how would you account for it in the accounts?

 

Putting his hand in his pocket is exactly what he has done. He's taken £100m from his bank & cleared the clubs debt with the loan holders.

 

okay, maybe we should call it 'putting his hand in his pocket on the condition that he gets back at least the amount he took out of his pocket.' people on here seemed to think of it as a donation, not what it actually is.

 

anyway, afk, donating to Oxfam on the condition that they give me all my money back in 4 years.

 

You really don't get it, do you!?!

 

If he "gives" the club the money, the value of the club goes up by that amount.

 

If he "loans" the club the money, the value of the club stays the same and so does the debt.

 

It equates to the same thing.

 

If he sells the club he gets money for it, be that through an increased sale price or through repayment of debt, or are you hoping he'll give it away?

 

 

 

[johnnypd]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

So how would you account for it in the accounts?

 

Putting his hand in his pocket is exactly what he has done.  He's taken £100m from his bank & cleared the clubs debt with the loan holders.

 

okay, maybe we should call it 'putting his hand in his pocket on the condition that he gets back at least the amount he took out of his pocket.' people on here seemed to think of it as a donation, not what it actually is.

 

anyway, afk, donating to Oxfam on the condition that they give me all my money back in 4 years.

 

Oxfam is a charity, giving money to a charity falls under a completely different set of accounting and tax rules.  You're making yourself look daft.

 

How would you account for it?

 

it's called a joke, mate. dont tell me that thing about accountants having no sense of humour is true!

 

i'd call it a cash injection like the one we got in 1999 to rebuild the ground - something that will have to be paid back, in that case over 15 years, in this case it remains unknown. it is true that the rates are likely to be far better, or even suspended, but we havent actually seen the benefit of that. as i said, not criticising ashley for it, but not praising him for it either.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

needing to repay the stadium debt in the event of the club being sold was highly publicised years before ashley came onto the scene. it's part of the cost of purchasingf the club and if ashley didnt know about it then he has only himself to blame as the info was freely available on websites like nufc finances. saying that, it seems he hasnt even paid that off, just switched our debt so that we owe him or his holding company. it is preferential as the rates may be lower, but then again they might not be.

 

 

He's paid the debt off. 

 

as a loan

 

As opposed to doing what?  Genuine question.

 

as opposed to 'putting his hand in his pocket to pay off the debt' something for which most on here praised him. for over a year. probably repeated a thousand times over. people thought that, dont try and reinvent the past to make it look like everyone thought it was a loan from the start. im not criticising Ashley for it but at the same time im not going to praise him as, thus far, we've not had the knock-on effect of the money freed up being used to make us better.

 

So how would you account for it in the accounts?

 

Putting his hand in his pocket is exactly what he has done.  He's taken £100m from his bank & cleared the clubs debt with the loan holders.

 

okay, maybe we should call it 'putting his hand in his pocket on the condition that he gets back at least the amount he took out of his pocket.' people on here seemed to think of it as a donation, not what it actually is.

 

anyway, afk, donating to Oxfam on the condition that they give me all my money back in 4 years.

 

Oxfam is a charity, giving money to a charity falls under a completely different set of accounting and tax rules.  You're making yourself look daft.

 

How would you account for it?

 

it's called a joke, mate. dont tell me that thing about accountants having no sense of humour is true!

 

i'd call it a cash injection like the one we got in 1999 to rebuild the ground - something that will have to be paid back, in that case over 15 years, in this case it remains unknown. it is true that the rates are likely to be far better, or even suspended, but we havent actually seen the benefit of that. as i said, not criticising ashley for it, but not praising him for it either.

 

A loan then?  Nice one

[Optimistic Nut]

Leeds went to sh*t after Ridsdale left. I wonder if all the Leeds fans want him back because he spent massive money and lead them to the Champions League, great European cup runs, etc?

 

Difference is, whereas Leeds couldn't find anyone to stop their crippling debts and had to sell players on the cheap, we've had someone come in who's helped balance the books as best as we could have hoped, and hasn't had to resort to selling players at cut-prices.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Leeds went to sh*t after Ridsdale left. I wonder if all the Leeds fans want him back because he spent massive money and lead them to the Champions League, great European cup runs, etc?

 

Difference is, whereas Leeds couldn't find anyone to stop their crippling debts and had to sell players on the cheap, we've had someone come in who's helped balance the books as best as we could have hoped, and hasn't had to resort to selling players at cut-prices.

 

Quite the opposite in fact