Newcastle United Finances - 2008 Accounts Recently Filed

[indi]

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.

 

It's not even as "bad" as the loans Abramovich has made to Chelsea due to what the money has been used for.

 

Abramovich's loans have funded the purchase of players, many of whom have been signed for fees that were greatly over the odds and will never be recouped (see: Shaun Wright-Philips, Andriy Shevchenko, Hernán Crespo, etc). Those players are also on hugely inflated wages, which makes it even more difficult for Chelsea to move them on to other clubs if they become surplus to requirements. Essentially, the money has been spent on intangible assets and the majority of it is unrecoverable under any circumstances. If Abramovich called in those loans Chelsea would be totally fucked.

 

Ashley's loan has been to pay off debt owed to external agencies, who were charging interest regardless of whether the club was making a profit and could have recalled the loan at a point in time damaging to the club. If Ashley called in the loan, we'd be pretty fucked, but no worse than we already were, in fact we'd have benefited from not having to pay interest on the loans for however long it was between Ashley paying off the original loans and demanding repayment on the loan to him.

 

[Baggio]

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. 

 

Because the club has been operating at a loss and until he can turn it around it will continue to lose more.

[Mick]

 

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?

 

I haven't heard of any Chairman ever taking up office at the training ground so if Llambias has missed a trick then he's in good company.

 

The communication from within the club has been shite and must change once the window closes.

[NJS]

Ashley's loan has been to pay off debt owed to external agencies, who were charging interest regardless of whether the club was making a profit and could have recalled the loan at a point in time damaging to the club. If Ashley called in the loan, we'd be pretty fucked, but no worse than we already were, in fact we'd have benefited from not having to pay interest on the loans for however long it was between Ashley paying off the original loans and demanding repayment on the loan to him.

 

 

That's raising the possibility of something that would never happen though, even if the ground loan hadn't been subject to the clearance clause, why would NR, Barclays or any of the other owed parties have suddenly called them in? Hall raised this same possibility when he took over about the Barclays overdraft and I didn't believe him then either.

 

Of course I accept the point about saved interest.

[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.

 

It's not even as "bad" as the loans Abramovich has made to Chelsea due to what the money has been used for.

 

Abramovich's loans have funded the purchase of players, many of whom have been signed for fees that were greatly over the odds and will never be recouped (see: Shaun Wright-Philips, Andriy Shevchenko, Hernán Crespo, etc). Those players are also on hugely inflated wages, which makes it even more difficult for Chelsea to move them on to other clubs if they become surplus to requirements. Essentially, the money has been spent on intangible assets and the majority of it is unrecoverable under any circumstances. If Abramovich called in those loans Chelsea would be totally fucked.

 

Ashley's loan has been to pay off debt owed to external agencies, who were charging interest regardless of whether the club was making a profit and could have recalled the loan at a point in time damaging to the club. If Ashley called in the loan, we'd be pretty fucked, but no worse than we already were, in fact we'd have benefited from not having to pay interest on the loans for however long it was between Ashley paying off the original loans and demanding repayment on the loan to him.

 

 

Precisely, i perosnally cant look past the notion that this "debt" is still a burden to the club if its owed the the person who owns the club in the first place. Its about as secure as it can get.

 

If you're worried about the "debt" you're kind of implying that theres a danger that Ashley could call it in at any time and screw us over, even if he charged interest on the loan, hes not gonna do it if we cant afford it. Its just a ridiculous notion.

 

 

[timnufc22]

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 s***?

 

Okay then, the lack of clarity on Jimmenez' role... that angered people that it wasnt very clear.

 

Keegan's statement saying he dosent believe a player should be brought in he dosent want, whoever it is, it might not be Xisco, it might be, whoever it was most people believe someone was brought in he didnt want.

 

But there is concern about how much power he has - whether he had, or now has, the say on some players coming in & going out, which was sparked by Keegan resigning.

 

Why should they come out?? Because its very confusing, there are mixed messages bieng sent out by Kinnear, and some simple words without saying 'the manager is full of shit' from bloody Llambias the Chairman could potentially make some of the confusion clearer.

[Mick]

Can someone explain some of this to a moron

 

Id like to have a grasp of whats goin on

 

 

So if Mike Ashley walked away now.......what would happen ? Could he take us into administration if needed etc ?

 

Whats all this nonsense about us owing 250 mill...surely Ashley just owes himself the money if its his loan

 

Also why just loan us the money...are there benefits to him doing that ? Didnt his other company make a profit.....i hear you can get tax benefits using a corporate loan between related companies in this kind of situation..is this why hes done that ?

 

Yes he could put us into administration although that is almost certainly not going to happen.  As for the point of the loan, if we sort ourselves out financially then he can start taking his money back.

[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.

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

 

How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it?

[NJS]

If you're worried about the "debt" you're kind of implying that theres a danger that Ashley could call it in at any time and screw us over, even if he charged interest on the loan, hes not gonna do it if we cant afford it. Its just a ridiculous notion.

 

My concern isn't about the "present" as it were in him calling it in - I just feel uneasy about it being used as a bargaining chip as part of a future sale.

 

I know I'm being irrational to an extent which is why if there is something like a good tax reason for it I'd be happy to hear it.

[OzzieMandias]

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.

 

It's not even as "bad" as the loans Abramovich has made to Chelsea due to what the money has been used for.

 

Abramovich's loans have funded the purchase of players, many of whom have been signed for fees that were greatly over the odds and will never be recouped (see: Shaun Wright-Philips, Andriy Shevchenko, Hernán Crespo, etc). Those players are also on hugely inflated wages, which makes it even more difficult for Chelsea to move them on to other clubs if they become surplus to requirements. Essentially, the money has been spent on intangible assets and the majority of it is unrecoverable under any circumstances. If Abramovich called in those loans Chelsea would be totally fucked.

 

Ashley's loan has been to pay off debt owed to external agencies, who were charging interest regardless of whether the club was making a profit and could have recalled the loan at a point in time damaging to the club. If Ashley called in the loan, we'd be pretty fucked, but no worse than we already were, in fact we'd have benefited from not having to pay interest on the loans for however long it was between Ashley paying off the original loans and demanding repayment on the loan to him.

 

 

Precisely, i perosnally cant look past the notion that this "debt" is still a burden to the club if its owed the the person who owns the club in the first place. Its about as secure as it can get.

 

If you're worried about the "debt" you're kind of implying that theres a danger that Ashley could call it in at any time and screw us over, even if he charged interest on the loan, hes not gonna do it if we cant afford it. Its just a ridiculous notion.

 

 

 

Nonsense, he's an evil genius who'll arse-fuck his own company just to spite the fans.

[Guest fading star]

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.

 

It's not even as "bad" as the loans Abramovich has made to Chelsea due to what the money has been used for.

 

Abramovich's loans have funded the purchase of players, many of whom have been signed for fees that were greatly over the odds and will never be recouped (see: Shaun Wright-Philips, Andriy Shevchenko, Hernán Crespo, etc). Those players are also on hugely inflated wages, which makes it even more difficult for Chelsea to move them on to other clubs if they become surplus to requirements. Essentially, the money has been spent on intangible assets and the majority of it is unrecoverable under any circumstances. If Abramovich called in those loans Chelsea would be totally f***ed.

 

Ashley's loan has been to pay off debt owed to external agencies, who were charging interest regardless of whether the club was making a profit and could have recalled the loan at a point in time damaging to the club. If Ashley called in the loan, we'd be pretty f***ed, but no worse than we already were, in fact we'd have benefited from not having to pay interest on the loans for however long it was between Ashley paying off the original loans and demanding repayment on the loan to him.

 

 

Precisely, i perosnally cant look past the notion that this "debt" is still a burden to the club if its owed the the person who owns the club in the first place. Its about as secure as it can get.

 

If you're worried about the "debt" you're kind of implying that theres a danger that Ashley could call it in at any time and screw us over, even if he charged interest on the loan, hes not gonna do it if we cant afford it. Its just a ridiculous notion.

 

 

 

Nonsense, he's an evil genius who'll arse-f*** his own company just to spite the fans.

When do you see us being in aposition where we can spend money on players again. Will it be before or after Ashley gets his £100m back?

[OzzieMandias]

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.

 

It's not even as "bad" as the loans Abramovich has made to Chelsea due to what the money has been used for.

 

Abramovich's loans have funded the purchase of players, many of whom have been signed for fees that were greatly over the odds and will never be recouped (see: Shaun Wright-Philips, Andriy Shevchenko, Hernán Crespo, etc). Those players are also on hugely inflated wages, which makes it even more difficult for Chelsea to move them on to other clubs if they become surplus to requirements. Essentially, the money has been spent on intangible assets and the majority of it is unrecoverable under any circumstances. If Abramovich called in those loans Chelsea would be totally f***ed.

 

Ashley's loan has been to pay off debt owed to external agencies, who were charging interest regardless of whether the club was making a profit and could have recalled the loan at a point in time damaging to the club. If Ashley called in the loan, we'd be pretty f***ed, but no worse than we already were, in fact we'd have benefited from not having to pay interest on the loans for however long it was between Ashley paying off the original loans and demanding repayment on the loan to him.

 

 

Precisely, i perosnally cant look past the notion that this "debt" is still a burden to the club if its owed the the person who owns the club in the first place. Its about as secure as it can get.

 

If you're worried about the "debt" you're kind of implying that theres a danger that Ashley could call it in at any time and screw us over, even if he charged interest on the loan, hes not gonna do it if we cant afford it. Its just a ridiculous notion.

 

 

 

Nonsense, he's an evil genius who'll arse-f*** his own company just to spite the fans.

When do you see us being in aposition where we can spend money on players again. Will it be before or after Ashley gets his £100m back?

 

I don't think he anticipates getting it back until such time as the club is sold.

[indi]

Ashley's loan has been to pay off debt owed to external agencies, who were charging interest regardless of whether the club was making a profit and could have recalled the loan at a point in time damaging to the club. If Ashley called in the loan, we'd be pretty fucked, but no worse than we already were, in fact we'd have benefited from not having to pay interest on the loans for however long it was between Ashley paying off the original loans and demanding repayment on the loan to him.

 

 

That's raising the possibility of something that would never happen though, even if the ground loan hadn't been subject to the clearance clause, why would NR, Barclays or any of the other owed parties have suddenly called them in? Hall raised this same possibility when he took over about the Barclays overdraft and I didn't believe him then either.

 

Of course I accept the point about saved interest.

 

Yet, you seem to think that Ashley would do it to himself.

 

Banks call in loans all the time, they often do it to healthy companies and it can be nothing to do with the recipient of the loan and everything to do with the bank's own situation. NUFC is not a healthy company and would not be looked upon as a good risk by any financial institution at present without Ashley's personal backing. A bank would screw NUFC without a second thought if it felt that was the best thing to do for its own benefit. Ashley on the other hand, would essentially be screwing himself should he call the loan in, he owns NUFC and therefore he would be damaging his own business. That's got to make it less likely than a bank doing it, hasn't it!?!

[fredbob]

If you're worried about the "debt" you're kind of implying that theres a danger that Ashley could call it in at any time and screw us over, even if he charged interest on the loan, hes not gonna do it if we cant afford it. Its just a ridiculous notion.

 

My concern isn't about the "present" as it were in him calling it in - I just feel uneasy about it being used as a bargaining chip as part of a future sale.

 

I know I'm being irrational to an extent which is why if there is something like a good tax reason for it I'd be happy to hear it.

 

What scenarios do you envisage being a problem?

[NJS]

If you're worried about the "debt" you're kind of implying that theres a danger that Ashley could call it in at any time and screw us over, even if he charged interest on the loan, hes not gonna do it if we cant afford it. Its just a ridiculous notion.

 

My concern isn't about the "present" as it were in him calling it in - I just feel uneasy about it being used as a bargaining chip as part of a future sale.

 

I know I'm being irrational to an extent which is why if there is something like a good tax reason for it I'd be happy to hear it.

 

What scenarios do you envisage being a problem?

 

This is why I admit to being irrational - I'm not clear in my own mind how it could be used but my mistrust of the man makes me believe there must be a way.

 

Say a consortium of NE businesses expressed an interest but were unwilling to pay the full asking price. However there was considerable public backing for the bid which went beyond mafia banners. Ashley decides to take say £150m for the club to save the hassle but keeps the loan. That could then become a millstone around the clubs neck. Whereas if as mentioned above the loan did not exist any leeway in the price negotiations would be completely free from complications.

 

To be clear I recognise that at present it is better for the club that it owes money to Ashley rather than the bank - I'm just not completely worry free.

[NJS]

Yet, you seem to think that Ashley would do it to himself.

 

No - see my other posts

[fredbob]

If you're worried about the "debt" you're kind of implying that theres a danger that Ashley could call it in at any time and screw us over, even if he charged interest on the loan, hes not gonna do it if we cant afford it. Its just a ridiculous notion.

 

My concern isn't about the "present" as it were in him calling it in - I just feel uneasy about it being used as a bargaining chip as part of a future sale.

 

I know I'm being irrational to an extent which is why if there is something like a good tax reason for it I'd be happy to hear it.

 

What scenarios do you envisage being a problem?

 

This is why I admit to being irrational - I'm not clear in my own mind how it could be used but my mistrust of the man makes me believe there must be a way.

 

Say a consortium of NE businesses expressed an interest but were unwilling to pay the full asking price. However there was considerable public backing for the bid which went beyond mafia banners. Ashley decides to take say £150m for the club to save the hassle but keeps the loan. That could then become a millstone around the clubs neck. Whereas if as mentioned above the loan did not exist any leeway in the price negotiations would be completely free from complications.

 

To be clear I recognise that at present it is better for the club that it owes money to Ashley rather than the bank - I'm just not completely worry free.

 

 

 

That fair enough, i personally do trust the man, and do think he's got the clubs interest at heart, i personally hope that he gets us into a situation where the club IS able to pay the money back and back itself in the market, as well that would be a fanstastic achievement.

 

I dont think its an unrealistic hope either, all he needs is one good managerial appointment that could acutally be the whole key to the entire future of this club.

[Guest fading star]

Ashley's loan has been to pay off debt owed to external agencies, who were charging interest regardless of whether the club was making a profit and could have recalled the loan at a point in time damaging to the club. If Ashley called in the loan, we'd be pretty f***ed, but no worse than we already were, in fact we'd have benefited from not having to pay interest on the loans for however long it was between Ashley paying off the original loans and demanding repayment on the loan to him.

 

 

That's raising the possibility of something that would never happen though, even if the ground loan hadn't been subject to the clearance clause, why would NR, Barclays or any of the other owed parties have suddenly called them in? Hall raised this same possibility when he took over about the Barclays overdraft and I didn't believe him then either.

 

Of course I accept the point about saved interest.

 

Yet, you seem to think that Ashley would do it to himself.

 

Banks call in loans all the time, they often do it to healthy companies and it can be nothing to do with the recipient of the loan and everything to do with the bank's own situation. NUFC is not a healthy company and would not be looked upon as a good risk by any financial institution at present without Ashley's personal backing. A bank would screw NUFC without a second thought if it felt that was the best thing to do for its own benefit. Ashley on the other hand, would essentially be screwing himself should he call the loan in, he owns NUFC and therefore he would be damaging his own business. That's got to make it less likely than a bank doing it, hasn't it!?!

NUFC isn’t Jamie’s Tile Warehouse, and no bank is going to risk the avalanche of negative publicity it would get for killing off a club of Newcastle stature. However, if we get relegated this season we will go bust unless Ashley lends the club some more money… about £50m by my estimate. 

 

Even if we stay up cost cutting isn’t going to keep pace with falling revenues. Ashley has pushed the club into a vicious cycle that can only be broken by an investment in the product. Less income = less money for team building  = less income = less money for team building etc etc

[Mick]

Good luck with that one Indi. 

[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.

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

 

How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it?

 

Bump

[fredbob]

Good luck with that one Indi. 

 

[NJS]

Bump

 

The possibilities are there - a Jack Walker/Steve Gibson type philanthropic injection for one. Many people sort of expected that of Ashley including me to some extent - of course you could argue it from an investment pov rather than pure philanthropy as well. If you buy a run down house you will put money into it with a view to a later return.

 

 

 

 

[Thespence]

Bump

 

The possibilities are there - a Jack Walker/Steve Gibson type philanthropic injection for one.

 

Gibbo is nee Jack Walker he has stacked money spent against him.

[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. 

 

How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it?

 

Bump

He could have invested £100m in his business, instead of lending it the money with an option to charge interest. If he’s as committed to club as he says why go for the loan option?

[fredbob]

Bump

 

The possibilities are there - a Jack Walker/Steve Gibson type philanthropic injection for one. Many people sort of expected that of Ashley including me to some extent - of course you could argue it from an investment pov rather than pure philanthropy as well. If you buy a run down house you will put money into it with a view to a later return.

 

 

 

 

 

Gibson is a guarantor to the tune of £60m (?), walker is the only truly philanthropic owner that i can think of in the the prem.