Newcastle United Finances - 2008 Accounts Recently Filed

[fredbob]

I think Ashley is under the assumption that we will stay in the league regardless...so wouldnt spend much even if he had it. Thats the feeling i get....Kinnear claimed he had to have a meeting with Ashley & Wise two weeks into the transfer window to "explain" how bad our situation was. That fills me with a lot of doubt over their awareness of how dangerously close we are to getting relegated this season. We're playing badly now against bad teams...we have Everton, Arsenal, Chelsea & Man Utd home games all in a row coming up. We're 2 points off the very bottom.....a bad run for us with other teams picking up points...we could be out of it soon. Thats a far far to realistic possiblity.

 

Especially when you imagine the negative reaction that would create in the fans faith in the management, the players, the players own confidence etc. Last season the boost of Keegan got us going again.....this season...the way newcastle play.....if we hit bottom....i dont see us as a side that will be able to pull ourselves out of that on our performances over the last few seasons.

 

No one except Barton looks to have any real passion.....as Kinnear has said he could be key for us.

 

Its clear that a lot of criticism directed towards Ashley has been unfair now these accounts have come out.

 

But when you get back to the core of the situation at present, the choices he makes in this transfer window will ultimately determine peoples perception of him.

If he fails to risk some investment in the first team to stop us from being relegated because of our tiny squad... or the mental boost some new players might give the others around them and we do get relegated...

 

Only he can be blamed...and he'll lose a whole lot of money while we suffer the consequences with him.

 

If we dont get anyone else in this window, we're in serious danger surely.

 

A very good post Jayson - this sums up the whole situation very well.

 

I agree with most, if not all, of your points and would add that Ashley is mainly responsible for appointing the wrong staff to run the club ; furthermore, he has shown bad judgment and appalling management skills by alllowing the Keegan walk-out to be finalised - anyone with half a brain would have realised the drastic effect such an event would have on both fans and players at the start of the season.

I believe that KK could have been talked round, and although it may have cost Ashley by having to fire Wise, it would have probably ensured the club would remain in the Prem, although only just, because the team is patently NOT good enough...the turmoil at the season's start has wrecked morale and this could have been prevented.

So, despite the good work he has done to put the club on a better financial footing, Ashley has messed-up big time.

 

Your post discount the idea that problems may have been caused by Keegan in this whole farce, the accounts show the neccesity of having the "transfer team" becasue they're ensuring that the money is going further, which is vital.

 

Ashley 2 major mistakes have been appointing Keegan and poor communication.

 

A 'transfer team' is NOT necessary to ensure that player purchases are kept within a budget ; KK has had to work with that before(look at the 'huge' sums he spent building the promotion side..!!)and I am sure that, if he had been given the TRUE PICTURE prior to joining as manager , he would have either accepted or rejected the job on the terms given to him when he met Ashley...

The 'farce' is Ashley's handling of the situation and the fact that either ;

1.He didn't tell Keegan what the management set-up would consist of, Or

2.He told him one thing and did another, just to get him in when he couldn't recruit other managers.

 

Your reply discounts the a/m possibilities, and I am NOT in the KK forever camp ; I DO, however, realise that Keegan could have been told a different story both before he joined the club, and prior to Wise & Co joining.

 

As has been said in the past, both Wenger & Fergie said KK was RIGHT to walk if he hadn't been given control of signings, so it seems these experienced managers would disagree with your views about Ashley..

 

Then i guess its down to each persons interpretation of events, Keegan said repeatedly that he was aware of the structure - if such a huge thing wasnt discussed at the point of appointment then both sides want shooting. However,  assuming Keegan soon found out that the system wasnt going to work the way he thought or wanted, then why didnt he walk there and then, if no money was available why not walk then as well? In fact, in both scenarios you give he should of walked, we know that Keegan is a man of 'principle', your explanation of the events dont really fully explain why he walked on only the last day of the transfer window.

 

Im not sure what "a/m" means, although im aware that Keegan is a man of consistent principle (first/second time he quit nufc in the early 90's, wanted to stay at fulham to finish the job but took the big job with his bosses blessing, resigned wehn he knew he was out of his depth at england, resigned at man c when he knew he's lost his love for the game etc) so what was it in all this that kept him here if so much had fundamentally changed from what was said during his appointment?

 

Wenger and Fergie may well be right, assuming Keegan absolutely no control of the transfers but we saw throughout the summer that Keegan did have power to say  yes or no, players like Zayatte were turned down by keegan, if he absolutely no choice then how is this at all remotely possilbe?

 

Like i say, Ashley 2 major mistakes are his woeful communication with the fans, and the appointment of Keegan in the first place.

 

[indi]

They've done quite well on that front have Spurs, which I think is more of what Ashley has been trying to do with us, rather than the Arsenal model. Only thing of course is it doesn't lead to much continuity in your squad if you're chopping and changing all of the time.

 

I hope Spurs do keep chopping and changing because I think that is holding them back.

 

Me too.

 

On the pitch yes, but they're managing to become more and more financially secure each season, even with their erratic performances, and that'll allow them to build more consistently at some point in the future. I'd go for a few seasons of us buying and selling players relatively quickly and making a profit, to set us up for a period of serious squad building in a few season's time. Obviously there's risks involved in that and if Spurs go down this year it could all go to shit, but I'm not sure we really have any other option if we want to secure the long term future of the club. I think as much as we're desperate to win something, it having been so long since we last did, we need to accept that the reality of the situation we now find ourselves in means that it's not going to happen for a while. If we try and walk before we can run it's not going to work and we'll end up in the opposite situation of fighting for our Premiership survival. For too long this club has been run in a way to try and grab some short-term success, hoping that signing a couple of big-name players will cover up the perennial weaknesses in our squad and allow us to grab something like a cup win or Champions' League qualification that'll provide the finance to allow us to kick-on. That's a high-risk strategy and it simply hasn't worked, we've gambled for too long and lost and now we're in a position of not being able to gamble any more. We've become addicted to gambling and it's going to be hard to break the habit, but it has to be done. We need to be prepared to settle for improving the club's overall position year on year, either by improving the playing squad in terms of numbers and/or overall quality, or the club's financial position through being prepared to sell some of our best players for a profit. People might not like it, but that's how it has to be. Being a "big-club" and having a large fan-base and a nice stadium are meaningless now and if we continue to believe that's all it takes then we're going to end up being a big-club in the same way that Forest, Leeds and Sheff Wed are big clubs.

[Tooj]

They've done quite well on that front have Spurs, which I think is more of what Ashley has been trying to do with us, rather than the Arsenal model. Only thing of course is it doesn't lead to much continuity in your squad if you're chopping and changing all of the time.

 

I hope Spurs do keep chopping and changing because I think that is holding them back.

 

Me too.

 

On the pitch yes, but they're managing to become more and more financially secure each season, even with their erratic performances, and that'll allow them to build more consistently at some point in the future. I'd go for a few seasons of us buying and selling players relatively quickly and making a profit, to set us up for a period of serious squad building in a few season's time. Obviously there's risks involved in that and if Spurs go down this year it could all go to shit, but I'm not sure we really have any other option if we want to secure the long term future of the club. I think as much as we're desperate to win something, it having been so long since we last did, we need to accept that the reality of the situation we now find ourselves in means that it's not going to happen for a while. If we try and walk before we can run it's not going to work and we'll end up in the opposite situation of fighting for our Premiership survival. For too long this club has been run in a way to try and grab some short-term success, hoping that signing a couple of big-name players will cover up the perennial weaknesses in our squad and allow us to grab something like a cup win or Champions' League qualification that'll provide the finance to allow us to kick-on. That's a high-risk strategy and it simply hasn't worked, we've gambled for too long and lost and now we're in a position of not being able to gamble any more. We've become addicted to gambling and it's going to be hard to break the habit, but it has to be done. We need to be prepared to settle for improving the club's overall position year on year, either by improving the playing squad in terms of numbers and/or overall quality, or the club's financial position through being prepared to sell some of our best players for a profit. People might not like it, but that's how it has to be. Being a "big-club" and having a large fan-base and a nice stadium are meaningless now and if we continue to believe that's all it takes then we're going to end up being a big-club in the same way that Forest, Leeds and Sheff Wed are big clubs.

 

Fantastic post.

[Wullie]

 

But putting aside Ashley's personal wealth, should a club of our size not be able to fund transfers of its own accord?

 

These latest figures don't make good reading and show what a mess Shepherd left us in but they do show a club shorn of debt (other than to its owner which we can ignore for the time being) which makes us one of the very few in the league in that state iirc. Seeing as much of the "loss" is this amortisation business, which is a paper loss rather than cash, these figures look to me (as someone who knows jack s*** about it so please put me right) like we are one of the few clubs who can actually afford to spend rather than the other way on - especially when they don't include three season's worth of ST money from at least 25000 people (my guess).

 

Can someone explain to me: if we can't afford to buy anyone, how the f*** can anyone else (obvious exceptions, Villa, City, Chelsea apart)?

 

Player amortisation isn't a paper loss, if we buy a player for £10 million over 4 years then it's shown on the accounts as £2.5 million per year.  We could also be paying the transfer fee over the whole period of the contract.

 

As for how others can afford transfers, no idea other than they're probably borrowing and have a surplus between money coming in and money going out.  We've got no room to borrow as we have more going out than coming in so we have nothing to pay a loan back with.

 

It is a paper loss in that it doesn't affect the amount of cash currently in the kitty to buy players. You're right in that it does if the fee is being paid in installments that reflect that amortisation but in that case we should also be receiving cash from other clubs for the players we've sold - I don't know whether that is treated on the books in the same way (e.g. when we sold Dyer, did it go on the books as £8m or £2m every year for four years?)

[Wullie]

Wullie, the reason i asked earlier about the enterprise value of the club was because it helps explain why man u can have debt and invest. The cash in is bigger than the cash out on an annual basis.

 

As for analysing the structure of ashley's wealth, thats exactly what you SHOULD be doing. If 600m is held in devaluing equity then the question of where 25m is coming from is a very pertinent one. Especially if one of your biggest assets cant pay for itself.

 

But putting aside Ashley's personal wealth, should a club of our size not be able to fund transfers of its own accord?

 

These latest figures don't make good reading and show what a mess Shepherd left us in but they do show a club shorn of debt (other than to its owner which we can ignore for the time being) which makes us one of the very few in the league in that state iirc. Seeing as much of the "loss" is this amortisation business, which is a paper loss rather than cash, these figures look to me (as someone who knows jack shit about it so please put me right) like we are one of the few clubs who can actually afford to spend rather than the other way on - especially when they don't include three season's worth of ST money from at least 25000 people (my guess).

 

Can someone explain to me: if we can't afford to buy anyone, how the fuck can anyone else (obvious exceptions, Villa, City, Chelsea apart)?

 

I'm not sure that the three years worth of season tickets will make a huge difference.

 

If the club is smart, that will be going on their accounts per year, because it's stupid to put it all on one year, meaning that in one year we're going to have lots from season tickets, yet in other years we're going to have nothing.

 

Plus, with the stadium hardly selling out these days, there's somewhere between 5,000 - 7,000 tickets going spare, which at 35 quid a pop (on average) is somewhere between £175,000 and £245,000 each match that's not getting paid in, that would have been in previous seasons.

 

But in previous seasons, a large percentage of the ticket cash was paying off a mortgage which no longer exists. Also I can see that the club might register the season ticket cash over three years on the books but again, that's a paper issue - the cash doesn't magically disappear for a year before a third of it pops up next summer to go on the books again. That cash should be being used to secure our Premiership future because we'll lose far more than that if we go down, not least in the amount of people who either won't renew or will cut off their direct debit.

[Mick]

 

It is a paper loss in that it doesn't affect the amount of cash currently in the kitty to buy players. You're right in that it does if the fee is being paid in installments that reflect that amortisation but in that case we should also be receiving cash from other clubs for the players we've sold - I don't know whether that is treated on the books in the same way (e.g. when we sold Dyer, did it go on the books as £8m or £2m every year for four years?)

 

I'm sure that the money shows up on the accounts as it comes in.

[Stu]

They've done quite well on that front have Spurs, which I think is more of what Ashley has been trying to do with us, rather than the Arsenal model. Only thing of course is it doesn't lead to much continuity in your squad if you're chopping and changing all of the time.

 

I hope Spurs do keep chopping and changing because I think that is holding them back.

 

Me too.

 

On the pitch yes, but they're managing to become more and more financially secure each season, even with their erratic performances, and that'll allow them to build more consistently at some point in the future. I'd go for a few seasons of us buying and selling players relatively quickly and making a profit, to set us up for a period of serious squad building in a few season's time. Obviously there's risks involved in that and if Spurs go down this year it could all go to shit, but I'm not sure we really have any other option if we want to secure the long term future of the club. I think as much as we're desperate to win something, it having been so long since we last did, we need to accept that the reality of the situation we now find ourselves in means that it's not going to happen for a while. If we try and walk before we can run it's not going to work and we'll end up in the opposite situation of fighting for our Premiership survival. For too long this club has been run in a way to try and grab some short-term success, hoping that signing a couple of big-name players will cover up the perennial weaknesses in our squad and allow us to grab something like a cup win or Champions' League qualification that'll provide the finance to allow us to kick-on. That's a high-risk strategy and it simply hasn't worked, we've gambled for too long and lost and now we're in a position of not being able to gamble any more. We've become addicted to gambling and it's going to be hard to break the habit, but it has to be done. We need to be prepared to settle for improving the club's overall position year on year, either by improving the playing squad in terms of numbers and/or overall quality, or the club's financial position through being prepared to sell some of our best players for a profit. People might not like it, but that's how it has to be. Being a "big-club" and having a large fan-base and a nice stadium are meaningless now and if we continue to believe that's all it takes then we're going to end up being a big-club in the same way that Forest, Leeds and Sheff Wed are big clubs.

 

Fantastic post.

 

[Guest neesy111]

ashley's biggest mistake was getting keegan back in the first place, it was always going to end in tears especially with the over-reaction we have from many of our fan's

[timnufc22]

Aston Villa

Loss before tax £2.8m

 

Debts £63.8m

 

Interest payable £2.7m

 

Ownership Reform Acquisitions LLC, an American company owned ultimately by US resident Randy Lerner

 

The state it's in Full houses enjoying muscular football thanks to Martin O'Neill's coaching and Randy Lerner's ownership mean happy days at Villa Park. Unlike the North American owners of Manchester United and Liverpool, Lerner has not loaded his own borrowings on to the club, and has put real cash in. While Lerner, a billionaire and now Villa's chairman, stands behind the club, Villa look sound.

 

Verdict Villa's debts are not huge, particularly given Lerner's support, and ticket prices among the lowest in the Premier League maintain crowds.

 

 

How does this compare?

[Mick]

Aston Villa

Loss before tax £2.8m

 

Debts £63.8m

 

Interest payable £2.7m

 

Ownership Reform Acquisitions LLC, an American company owned ultimately by US resident Randy Lerner

 

The state it's in Full houses enjoying muscular football thanks to Martin O'Neill's coaching and Randy Lerner's ownership mean happy days at Villa Park. Unlike the North American owners of Manchester United and Liverpool, Lerner has not loaded his own borrowings on to the club, and has put real cash in. While Lerner, a billionaire and now Villa's chairman, stands behind the club, Villa look sound.

 

Verdict Villa's debts are not huge, particularly given Lerner's support, and ticket prices among the lowest in the Premier League maintain crowds.

 

 

How does this compare?

 

They've been bought out the same way as we were, unlike the other two mentioned who have been bought by actually looading the club with debt.  In effect Man U and Liverpool bought themselves, if that makes sense.

 

Villa have a lot less debt and are in a much healthier position on the pitch than we are.

[indi]

Aston Villa

Loss before tax £2.8m

 

Debts £63.8m

 

Interest payable £2.7m

 

Ownership Reform Acquisitions LLC, an American company owned ultimately by US resident Randy Lerner

 

The state it's in Full houses enjoying muscular football thanks to Martin O'Neill's coaching and Randy Lerner's ownership mean happy days at Villa Park. Unlike the North American owners of Manchester United and Liverpool, Lerner has not loaded his own borrowings on to the club, and has put real cash in. While Lerner, a billionaire and now Villa's chairman, stands behind the club, Villa look sound.

 

Verdict Villa's debts are not huge, particularly given Lerner's support, and ticket prices among the lowest in the Premier League maintain crowds.

 

 

How does this compare?

 

Where did you find that? Do they have a similar summary about us?

[Wullie]

Aston Villa

Loss before tax £2.8m

 

Debts £63.8m

 

Interest payable £2.7m

 

Ownership Reform Acquisitions LLC, an American company owned ultimately by US resident Randy Lerner

 

The state it's in Full houses enjoying muscular football thanks to Martin O'Neill's coaching and Randy Lerner's ownership mean happy days at Villa Park. Unlike the North American owners of Manchester United and Liverpool, Lerner has not loaded his own borrowings on to the club, and has put real cash in. While Lerner, a billionaire and now Villa's chairman, stands behind the club, Villa look sound.

 

Verdict Villa's debts are not huge, particularly given Lerner's support, and ticket prices among the lowest in the Premier League maintain crowds.

 

 

How does this compare?

 

They've been bought out the same way as we were, unlike the other two mentioned who have been bought by actually looading the club with debt.  In effect Man U and Liverpool bought themselves, if that makes sense.

 

Villa have a lot less debt and are in a much healthier position on the pitch than we are.

 

How do they have less debt?

[timnufc22]

Aston Villa

Loss before tax £2.8m

 

Debts £63.8m

 

Interest payable £2.7m

 

Ownership Reform Acquisitions LLC, an American company owned ultimately by US resident Randy Lerner

 

The state it's in Full houses enjoying muscular football thanks to Martin O'Neill's coaching and Randy Lerner's ownership mean happy days at Villa Park. Unlike the North American owners of Manchester United and Liverpool, Lerner has not loaded his own borrowings on to the club, and has put real cash in. While Lerner, a billionaire and now Villa's chairman, stands behind the club, Villa look sound.

 

Verdict Villa's debts are not huge, particularly given Lerner's support, and ticket prices among the lowest in the Premier League maintain crowds.

 

 

How does this compare?

 

Where did you find that? Do they have a similar summary about us?

 

Loss before tax £33m

 

Debts £79m - £59m paid off by Ashley

 

Interest payable £6m

 

Ownership Mike Ashley,via his company, St James' Holdings Limited.

 

The state it's in The tragic half of Mike Ashley's tragi-farce is that he can justly claim to be a financial benefactor. In September 2007 he paid off £59m loans taken out while Freddy Shepherd was the chairman and major shareholder. Ashley apparently paid real money, rather than make loans of his own. But financial responsibility counts for sadly little while Newcastle are scuffling at the bottom of the table and Dennis Wise is director of football.

 

Verdict Even if crowds fall further, they are unlikely to struggle financially because of Ashley's backing, until he manages to sell the club.

[Mick]

 

How do they have less debt?

 

Our accounts show that we have a £100 million loan on the books that we might have to repay, I would have thought that it will have to be paid off at some stage or written off.

 

Either way it is technically debt as long as it's on the books although Ashley owes Ashley.  Even if it isn't costing anything we can't spend it twice, it's gone.

[Wullie]

 

How do they have less debt?

 

Our accounts show that we have a £100 million loan on hte books that we might have to repay, I would have thought that it will have to be paid off at some stage or written off.

 

Either way it is technically debt as long as it's on the books although Ashley owes Ashley.  Even if it isn't costing anything we can't spend it twice, it's gone.

 

But if it's debt that we don't have to pay off, it's not really debt is it - not in terms of how the club operates day-to-day. If Ashley is going to potentially devastate the club by taking us down because he's worried about his own loan, he's an even bigger cunt that I thought he was - fucking stupid as well if he thinks he'll get it back in the Championship.

[Guest toonlass]

 

How do they have less debt?

 

Our accounts show that we have a £100 million loan on hte books that we might have to repay, I would have thought that it will have to be paid off at some stage or written off.

 

Either way it is technically debt as long as it's on the books although Ashley owes Ashley.  Even if it isn't costing anything we can't spend it twice, it's gone.

 

But if it's debt that we don't have to pay off, it's not really debt is it - not in terms of how the club operates day-to-day. If Ashley is going to potentially devastate the club by taking us down because he's worried about his own loan, he's an even bigger cunt that I thought he was - fucking stupid as well if he thinks he'll get it back in the Championship.

 

On paper the debt exists. In reality Ashley won't be calling in the loan any time soon.

[Wullie]

Would we not expect Villa's next few accounts show a massive loss because of amortisation? I find it odd that their losses are so small when Lerner's spent so much (around £100m) on players who will now be depreciating in value.

[Baggio]

 

How do they have less debt?

 

Our accounts show that we have a £100 million loan on hte books that we might have to repay, I would have thought that it will have to be paid off at some stage or written off.

 

Either way it is technically debt as long as it's on the books although Ashley owes Ashley.  Even if it isn't costing anything we can't spend it twice, it's gone.

 

But if it's debt that we don't have to pay off, it's not really debt is it - not in terms of how the club operates day-to-day. If Ashley is going to potentially devastate the club by taking us down because he's worried about his own loan, he's an even bigger cunt that I thought he was - fucking stupid as well if he thinks he'll get it back in the Championship.

 

Of course it's still debt, it still has to be paid back even if it's when the club is sold, as will any debt have to be paid back that you're suggesting he adds to it.

[Wullie]

 

How do they have less debt?

 

Our accounts show that we have a £100 million loan on hte books that we might have to repay, I would have thought that it will have to be paid off at some stage or written off.

 

Either way it is technically debt as long as it's on the books although Ashley owes Ashley.  Even if it isn't costing anything we can't spend it twice, it's gone.

 

But if it's debt that we don't have to pay off, it's not really debt is it - not in terms of how the club operates day-to-day. If Ashley is going to potentially devastate the club by taking us down because he's worried about his own loan, he's an even bigger cunt that I thought he was - fucking stupid as well if he thinks he'll get it back in the Championship.

 

Of course it's still debt, it still has to be paid back even if it's when the club is sold, as will any debt have to be paid back that you're suggesting he adds to it.

 

I'm not suggesting he adds to it, unless the season ticket money has already been spent on something else.

[Baggio]

 

How do they have less debt?

 

Our accounts show that we have a £100 million loan on hte books that we might have to repay, I would have thought that it will have to be paid off at some stage or written off.

 

Either way it is technically debt as long as it's on the books although Ashley owes Ashley.  Even if it isn't costing anything we can't spend it twice, it's gone.

 

But if it's debt that we don't have to pay off, it's not really debt is it - not in terms of how the club operates day-to-day. If Ashley is going to potentially devastate the club by taking us down because he's worried about his own loan, he's an even bigger cunt that I thought he was - fucking stupid as well if he thinks he'll get it back in the Championship.

 

Of course it's still debt, it still has to be paid back even if it's when the club is sold, as will any debt have to be paid back that you're suggesting he adds to it.

 

I'm not suggesting he adds to it, unless the season ticket money has already been spent on something else.

 

The season ticket money will go into running the club this season, unless you're talking about the 3 year money which will obviously be spread over 3 years, unless you think he should spend it all up front now like Shepherd did with the sponsorship money and worry about the drop in income next season.

[Mick]

 

But if it's debt that we don't have to pay off, it's not really debt is it - not in terms of how the club operates day-to-day. If Ashley is going to potentially devastate the club by taking us down because he's worried about his own loan, he's an even bigger c*** that I thought he was - f***ing stupid as well if he thinks he'll get it back in the Championship.

 

While it's on the books we do have to pay off, it's up to him if he starts taking it back or not and up until the end of the last financial year he hadn't taken a penny back, he'd actually put in a further £10 million. 

 

Like I said, we can't spend it twice.  I don't see how or why taking us down would secure his loan and I doubt he'd think that.

[Wullie]

 

How do they have less debt?

 

Our accounts show that we have a £100 million loan on hte books that we might have to repay, I would have thought that it will have to be paid off at some stage or written off.

 

Either way it is technically debt as long as it's on the books although Ashley owes Ashley.  Even if it isn't costing anything we can't spend it twice, it's gone.

 

But if it's debt that we don't have to pay off, it's not really debt is it - not in terms of how the club operates day-to-day. If Ashley is going to potentially devastate the club by taking us down because he's worried about his own loan, he's an even bigger cunt that I thought he was - fucking stupid as well if he thinks he'll get it back in the Championship.

 

Of course it's still debt, it still has to be paid back even if it's when the club is sold, as will any debt have to be paid back that you're suggesting he adds to it.

 

I'm not suggesting he adds to it, unless the season ticket money has already been spent on something else.

 

The season ticket money will go into running the club this season, unless you're talking about the 3 year money which will obviously be spread over 3 years, unless you think he should spend it all up front now like Shepherd did with the sponsorship money and worry about the drop in income next season.

 

All up front? No. Secure our status as a Premiership club? Yes.

 

Unless you think his losses will be less should we drop into the Championship.

[Wullie]

 

But if it's debt that we don't have to pay off, it's not really debt is it - not in terms of how the club operates day-to-day. If Ashley is going to potentially devastate the club by taking us down because he's worried about his own loan, he's an even bigger c*** that I thought he was - f***ing stupid as well if he thinks he'll get it back in the Championship.

 

While it's on the books we do have to pay off, it's up to him if he starts taking it back or not and up until the end of the last financial year he hadn't taken a penny back, he'd actually put in a further £10 million. 

 

Like I said, we can't spend it twice.  I don't see how or why taking us down would secure his loan and I doubt he'd think that.

 

I think we'll find out exactly what relegation does to his money.

[Mick]

 

I think we'll find out exactly what relegation does to his money.

 

I don't think we'll find out although it is a possibility, I think we'll know a bit more after the next couple of games.

[fredbob]

Would we not expect Villa's next few accounts show a massive loss because of amortisation? I find it odd that their losses are so small when Lerner's spent so much (around £100m) on players who will now be depreciating in value.

 

Its easier for Lerner to invest as well as he isnt being strangled by the wage bill, he can afford to take more gambles with finances as the wage ratio isnt too high and  taking up too much revenue. Basically he can afford to speculate to accumalte, if we were to do the same the success would have to be pretty instantaneuos, bascially CL qualification, we'd also be taking up more of the revenue with the excessive wages, if it werent to wrok out then Ashley would be having to finance the falilure again and again.

 

If he invested as heavily as he has and Martin O'neil didnt get anywhere then he'd curb the spending, its also worth noting that Carew aside he isnt funding the transfers to overpaid stars but young up and coming stars on lower wages, meaning theres the safety net of resale and low wages.

 

Theres no doubt in my mind that Ashley is willing to speculate to accumlate - but not in these conditions and not unchecked.