Newcastle United Finances - 2008 Accounts Recently Filed

[NJS]

People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done

 

I recognise that but still think he has made numerous mistakes, has a fundamental lack of understanding about football in general and NUFC in particular, think the reasons he has done things is wrong, think that he lacks any kind of ambition aimed in the right direction and don't trust anything the man says or does.

 

 

 

[indi]

I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else.

 

How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?!

 

Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest.

 

They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True.

 

They said that the debts had been paid off. True.

 

All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in  a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy.

 

The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that.

The debts haven’t been paid off they’ve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over.

 

How much money do you owe to yourself? How much interest do you charge yourself? Are you worried about you demanding repayment from yourself?

 

Personally, I'm getting rich off the loans I've made to myself, I'm screwing myself for every penny I'm worth. What a bastard/financial-genius I am!!

[OzzieMandias]

[NJS]

How much money do you owe to yourself? How much interest do you charge yourself? Are you worried about you demanding repayment from yourself?

 

Personally, I'm getting rich off the loans I've made to myself, I'm screwing myself for every penny I'm worth. What a bastard/financial-genius I am!!

 

When I was a contractor and director of a ltd company there was a completely legitimate notion of "the company" and the "director" ie me personally.

 

NUFC and Mike Ashley are not the same entity.

 

 

 

 

[indi]

How much money do you owe to yourself? How much interest do you charge yourself? Are you worried about you demanding repayment from yourself?

 

Personally, I'm getting rich off the loans I've made to myself, I'm screwing myself for every penny I'm worth. What a bastard/financial-genius I am!!

 

When I was a contractor and director of a ltd company there was a completely legitimate notion of "the company" and the "director" ie me personally.

 

NUFC and Mike Ashley are not the same entity.

 

 

 

 

 

Is that a ltd company, meaning it had issued shares, which were owned by a number of different people/organisations, or were you the sole share-holder?

 

Because unless you owned it in its entirety despite what you say being absolutely correct, it's not really the same thing, is it.

[fredbob]

How much money do you owe to yourself? How much interest do you charge yourself? Are you worried about you demanding repayment from yourself?

 

Personally, I'm getting rich off the loans I've made to myself, I'm screwing myself for every penny I'm worth. What a bastard/financial-genius I am!!

 

When I was a contractor and director of a ltd company there was a completely legitimate notion of "the company" and the "director" ie me personally.

 

NUFC and Mike Ashley are not the same entity.

 

 

 

 

 

So at the end of the day you dont acknowledge the debt repayment made from Ashley to the financiers as legitimate?

[Mick]

I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else.

 

The timing has nothing to do with Ashley, the accounts have to be completed and handed in to a deadline and Companies House are the ones who have published them.

 

As for what has been said, things have changed over a period of time, the global recession didn't begin with the publication of our accounts, it's been ongoing for a long time, it's just that the effects are becoming more evident as time goes on.

[NJS]

How much money do you owe to yourself? How much interest do you charge yourself? Are you worried about you demanding repayment from yourself?

 

Personally, I'm getting rich off the loans I've made to myself, I'm screwing myself for every penny I'm worth. What a bastard/financial-genius I am!!

 

When I was a contractor and director of a ltd company there was a completely legitimate notion of "the company" and the "director" ie me personally.

 

NUFC and Mike Ashley are not the same entity.

 

 

 

 

 

Is that a ltd company, meaning it had issued shares, which were owned by a number of different people/organisations, or were you the sole share-holder?

 

Because unless you owned it in its entirety despite what you say being absolutely correct, it's not really the same thing, is it.

 

It was a standard limited company that contractors use - it had one share which I owned.

 

I could both lend money to and borrow from the company and charge any interest rate I liked (obviously zero).

 

If Mike Ashley owns 100% of SJH Limited which owns the club then there is no difference as far as I can see.

 

 

[NJS]

So at the end of the day you dont acknowledge the debt repayment made from Ashley to the financiers as legitimate?

 

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free.

 

 

[fredbob]

So at the end of the day you dont acknowledge the debt repayment made from Ashley to the financiers as legitimate?

 

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free.

 

 

 

Well, then Im stumped, i dont see what you're critical point is then? By the same logic Roman deserve slander not credit.

 

If the asset belongs to you, and that asset owes you money then is it classifiable as debt in the same way as owing an asset and that asset owing money to someone else? If that makes sense.

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

So at the end of the day you dont acknowledge the debt repayment made from Ashley to the financiers as legitimate?

 

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free.

 

 

 

Talk about nitpicking.

 

He paid off the debts to that we won't have to fork out the £7 million in interest every year, happy to not charge us for doing so and appears happy to wait to get it back when the club is sold.

 

Yet people are still moaning.

[S.S.R.]

So at the end of the day you dont acknowledge the debt repayment made from Ashley to the financiers as legitimate?

 

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free.

 

 

 

Talk about nitpicking.

 

He paid off the debts to that we won't have to fork out the £7 million in interest every year, happy to not charge us for doing so and appears happy to wait to get it back when the club is sold.

 

Yet people are still moaning.

 

We don't owe the money, Ashley's business does. I just buy tickets to watch the games.

[NJS]

So at the end of the day you dont acknowledge the debt repayment made from Ashley to the financiers as legitimate?

 

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free.

 

 

 

Well, then Im stumped, i dont see what you're critical point is then? By the same logic Roman deserve slander not credit.

 

There are two reasons why I highlight it - one "petty" and one which worries me.

 

Firstly it shows the lack of clarity - we've heard the phrase "don't owe a penny to anyone" thrown about and general confusion over things like the outstanding transfer fees - I see it as another communication failure.

 

Secondly unless an accountant can give me a good reason for it to be a loan I don't "trust" why it exists. I don't think the price he wants is a good enough reason to justify it being on the books. If he had truly paid the debt off ie as a "gift" then he could still demand his £250m with the simple explanation of getting his money back which most people accept. I worry that he could change the terms of the loan "on a whim" as part of any proposed deal. I admit to not being sure what he could do but simply mistrust him short of good reasons for its presence.

 

 

[NJS]

 

Talk about nitpicking.

 

He paid off the debts to that we won't have to fork out the £7 million in interest every year, happy to not charge us for doing so and appears happy to wait to get it back when the club is sold.

 

Yet people are still moaning.

 

Again "paid off" in that context implies what you or I would do if we were given what we owed on our houses - no debt would remain - here it does.

 

 

edit: the "appears happy" is my point of concern as mentioned in my other post.

 

 

 

[timnufc22]

Yes, definetely there is a tendancy to look for a hero & villain, and I think that its understandable that Ashley has been tight with money. And in reality there is obviously more of a balance to the deabte of Ashley, like most things.

 

The academy looks to be shaping up well, and its a refreshing change to see good potential bieng brought to the club.

 

No, I dont think he would release a statement to ruin the SBR say either. But the anger does come from other things like:

 

The silence from the club in amongst the chaos at the club.

 

The seemingly dis-honesty about Dennis Wise' role - at first it was 'working with the academy, to look at, and bring in, young players from around the world', then it seems to go to simply 'bringing players in'.

 

Most people believe Keegan that Xisco was brought in without him wanting him.

 

The lack of clarity about the bloody structure now - okay they cant talk about Wise's role then because of legal reasons - why not talk about it now?. When he took the club off the market, why not say 'With regards to the scrutiny of Dennis' position, his position from this point is...' ? Or why not hear from the man himself?

 

They havent responded to any claims from Kinnear, why?

 

Why is Llambias the Chairman, yet does not talk?

 

Fans are hearing they are offering Kinnear a 2 year contract, that causes anger because it shows a lack of ambition.

 

It also gives the impression that the position is not a very credible one, if they are talking about securing Kinnear's position for another 2 years, instead of keeping there options open until the summer, and attempting to get in a better manager.

 

Hearing Kinnear saying he had to ring Llambias for him to base himself in Newcastle this window causes anger, as does hearing Kinnear say he dosent think the board realise what danger we are in - Again, you could say'well Kinnears talking tripe', well if so, why not show yourself in a more favourable light by speaking & clafifying the situation?

 

It also causes anger for me because imo the manager is the most importnant man, and imo David Moyes shows an alternative way to dealing with a budget.

 

[fredbob]

So at the end of the day you dont acknowledge the debt repayment made from Ashley to the financiers as legitimate?

 

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free.

 

 

 

Well, then Im stumped, i dont see what you're critical point is then? By the same logic Roman deserve slander not credit.

 

There are two reasons why I highlight it - one "petty" and one which worries me.

 

Firstly it shows the lack of clarity - we've heard the phrase "don't owe a penny to anyone" thrown about and general confusion over things like the outstanding transfer fees - I see it as another communication failure. Again, I always understood it as transfer fees not being classfied as debt.

 

Secondly unless an accountant can give me a good reason for it to be a loan I don't "trust" why it exists. I don't think the price he wants is a good enough reason to justify it being on the books. If he had truly paid the debt off ie as a "gift" then he could still demand his £250m with the simple explanation of getting his money back which most people accept. I worry that he could change the terms of the loan "on a whim" as part of any proposed deal. I admit to not being sure what he could do but simply mistrust him short of good reasons for its presence. This is a good point but how may businesses with revenue of £100m are sold for £250m? I dont see how this has anything to do with the way nufc is run though, this is just business, in very much the same way that previous regimes have paid out huge dividends depsite poor performances. Its exactly what Roman is doing, once Chelsea become self sufficcient. Abrmahmovich spent £60m to buy Chelsea, and plunged £600m into the club, do you think he should sell the club for £660m then? thats essentially what you're saying in order to prove his legimtimacy as a person and owner.

 

 

[Mick]

 

There are two reasons why I highlight it - one "petty" and one which worries me.

 

Firstly it shows the lack of clarity - we've heard the phrase "don't owe a penny to anyone" thrown about and general confusion over things like the outstanding transfer fees - I see it as another communication failure.

 

Secondly unless an accountant can give me a good reason for it to be a loan I don't "trust" why it exists. I don't think the price he wants is a good enough reason to justify it being on the books. If he had truly paid the debt off ie as a "gift" then he could still demand his £250m with the simple explanation of getting his money back which most people accept. I worry that he could change the terms of the loan "on a whim" as part of any proposed deal. I admit to not being sure what he could do but simply mistrust him short of good reasons for its presence.

 

 

 

He doesn't have to change the terms of the loan to start taking interest, it's a part of the loan agreement.

[Mick]

Yes, definetely there is a tendancy to look for a hero & villain, and I think that its understandable that Ashley has been tight with money. And in reality there is obviously more of a balance to the deabte of Ashley, like most things.

 

The academy looks to be shaping up well, and its a refreshing change to see good potential bieng brought to the club.

 

No, I dont think he would release a statement to ruin the SBR say either. But the anger does come from other things like:

 

The silence from the club in amongst the chaos at the club.

 

The seemingly dis-honesty about Dennis Wise' role - at first it was 'working with the academy, to look at, and bring in, young players from around the world', then it seems to go to simply 'bringing players in'.

 

Most people believe Keegan that Xisco was brought in without him wanting him.

 

The lack of clarity about the bloody structure now - okay they cant talk about Wise's role then because of legal reasons - why not talk about it now?. When he took the club off the market, why not say 'With regards to the scrutiny of Dennis' position, his position from this point is...' ? Or why not hear from the man himself?

 

They havent responded to any claims from Kinnear, why?

 

Why is Llambias the Chairman, yet does not talk?

 

Fans are hearing they are offering Kinnear a 2 year contract, that causes anger because it shows a lack of ambition.

 

It also gives the impression that the position is not a very credible one, if they are talking about securing Kinnear's position for another 2 years, instead of keeping there options open until the summer, and attempting to get in a better manager.

 

Hearing Kinnear saying he had to ring Llambias for him to base himself in Newcastle this window causes anger, as does hearing Kinnear say he dosent think the board realise what danger we are in - Again, you could say'well Kinnears talking tripe', well if so, why not show yourself in a more favourable light by speaking & clafifying the situation?

 

It also causes anger for me because imo the manager is the most importnant man, and imo David Moyes shows an alternative way to dealing with a budget.

 

 

I can see most of what you're saying but Kinnear didn't have to get Llambias to travel to Newcastle, he moved him from St James' to the training ground.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else.

 

How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?!

 

Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest.

 

They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True.

 

They said that the debts had been paid off. True.

 

All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in  a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy.

 

The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that.

The debts havent been paid off theyve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over.

 

Do you suggest he shouldn't have put the money in to save that being the case then?

 

Idiot.

[NJS]

This is a good point but how may businesses with revenue of £100m are sold for £250m? I dont see how this has anything to do with the way nufc is run though, this is just business, in very much the same way that previous regimes have paid out huge dividends depsite poor performances. Its exactly what Roman is doing, once Chelsea become self sufficcient. Abrmahmovich spent £60m to buy Chelsea, and plunged £600m into the club, do you think he should sell the club for £660m then? thats essentially what you're saying in order to prove his legimtimacy as a person and owner.

 

Being honest, if the proposed plans for Chelsea moving to Battersea and selling Stamford bridge come off, £660m would be far too low a figure.

 

I hate to sound like a capitalist but a business is worth what people are willing to pay for it which is why I've argued in the past for him taking a hit on his £250m. This why valuations based on the stadium, the squad and what has been put in, in whatever form become a bit moot imo - that's why I'd prefer less "confusion" (even if its only mine) on things like the debt.

 

[timnufc22]

Yes, definetely there is a tendancy to look for a hero & villain, and I think that its understandable that Ashley has been tight with money. And in reality there is obviously more of a balance to the deabte of Ashley, like most things.

 

The academy looks to be shaping up well, and its a refreshing change to see good potential bieng brought to the club.

 

No, I dont think he would release a statement to ruin the SBR say either. But the anger does come from other things like:

 

The silence from the club in amongst the chaos at the club.

 

The seemingly dis-honesty about Dennis Wise' role - at first it was 'working with the academy, to look at, and bring in, young players from around the world', then it seems to go to simply 'bringing players in'.

 

Most people believe Keegan that Xisco was brought in without him wanting him.

 

The lack of clarity about the bloody structure now - okay they cant talk about Wise's role then because of legal reasons - why not talk about it now?. When he took the club off the market, why not say 'With regards to the scrutiny of Dennis' position, his position from this point is...' ? Or why not hear from the man himself?

 

They havent responded to any claims from Kinnear, why?

 

Why is Llambias the Chairman, yet does not talk?

 

Fans are hearing they are offering Kinnear a 2 year contract, that causes anger because it shows a lack of ambition.

 

It also gives the impression that the position is not a very credible one, if they are talking about securing Kinnear's position for another 2 years, instead of keeping there options open until the summer, and attempting to get in a better manager.

 

Hearing Kinnear saying he had to ring Llambias for him to base himself in Newcastle this window causes anger, as does hearing Kinnear say he dosent think the board realise what danger we are in - Again, you could say'well Kinnears talking tripe', well if so, why not show yourself in a more favourable light by speaking & clafifying the situation?

 

It also causes anger for me because imo the manager is the most importnant man, and imo David Moyes shows an alternative way to dealing with a budget.

 

 

I can see most of what you're saying but Kinnear didn't have to get Llambias to travel to Newcastle, he moved him from St James' to the training ground.

 

Thats fair do's if he was already here, but just simply Kinnear saying he asked the Chairman to do something that would benefit/speed up the transfer window dealings, and needing to be told to do it, instead of knowing this anyway because he's the chairman, gives a very bad impression.

[Mick]

 

Thats fair do's if he was already here, but just simply Kinnear saying he asked the Chairman to do something that would benefit/speed up the transfer window dealings, and needing to be told to do it, instead of knowing this anyway because he's the chairman, gives a very bad impression.

 

We've never had a Chairman (or MD) in the past go to the training ground to speed up transfers, I can't see how this will make any difference.

[Baggio]

The seemingly dis-honesty about Dennis Wise' role - at first it was 'working with the academy, to look at, and bring in, young players from around the world', then it seems to go to simply 'bringing players in'.

 

I don't think anyone knows for a fact that Wise was the one bringing in players that the manager didn't want, for all we know it could have been Tony Jinenez, who was the head of player recruitment while here and had close links with the Spanish teams.

 

The only reason Wise would be negotiating deals now is because Jimenez has gone.

 

Most people believe Keegan that Xisco was brought in without him wanting him.

 

Have you got a link to where Keegan said he didn't want Xisco? Because the only interview I've seen where the 2 are mentioned is from Xisco when he first signed, saying Keegan met him and told him about his plans for the club, not really something you would do if you didn't want the player is it.

 

The lack of clarity about the bloody structure now - okay they cant talk about Wise's role then because of legal reasons - why not talk about it now?. When he took the club off the market, why not say 'With regards to the scrutiny of Dennis' position, his position from this point is...' ? Or why not hear from the man himself?

 

Wise's role has always been improving the club through the academy and scouting network until I hear different, he's seems to be making a good job of both too.

 

They havent responded to any claims from Kinnear, why?

 

They're not going to either, why come out in the January window when the club is apparently looking for players and saying your manager is full of shit?

[timnufc22]

 

Thats fair do's if he was already here, but just simply Kinnear saying he asked the Chairman to do something that would benefit/speed up the transfer window dealings, and needing to be told to do it, instead of knowing this anyway because he's the chairman, gives a very bad impression.

 

We've never had a Chairman (or MD) in the past go to the training ground to speed up transfers, I can't see how this will make any difference.

 

Basically, the manager is saying it will help things, and if thats the case then why wasnt he doing it in the first place. Then its 'but Kinnear's talking tripe'...  then why dosent Llambias himself come out and talk about the current sitaution regarding transfers?

[Guest fading star]

I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else.

 

How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?!

 

Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest.

 

They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True.

 

They said that the debts had been paid off. True.

 

All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in  a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy.

 

The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that.

The debts haven’t been paid off they’ve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over.

 

Do you suggest he shouldn't have put the money in to save that being the case then?

 

Idiot.

I’m not suggesting anything. NUFC does owe more money now than it did when the new owner took over. I’m sorry if the facts intrude on your childishly naïve Ashley fantasy but it’s important to establish the facts.