Teasy Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I don't think anyone can answer that because we don't know what the finances look like as of now, the only information we have is historical. But based on what we do know the club needed £30 million of new cash coming in just to survive during the year to 30 June. There was also a further £10 million put in shortly after 30 June. How bad a situation that is depends on the extent to which Ashley is willing or is able to fund it. It is a question that should be put to him - if he'd answer it. I can't see anything that has happened since 30 June that would make the financial situation significantly better, if anything I would expect club income to be down (lower pie and pint sales, shirts, non season ticket seat sales etc). Surely not having to pay a further £8 million in interest payments, no further £5 million payments to ex managers and making an £8-£10 million profit in the transfer market would make things significantly better. I mean assuming Keegan isn't going to win some kind of case against Newcastle, which I don't see happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I can understand your misgivings, HBOS demonstrated to KPMG their solvency; perhaps (and hopefully Ernst and Young is a tougher nut to crack) but Ashley is a businessman not an accountant and will not lose all of his investment. And Sky 2010. I did mention commercial borrowing as an alternative to his 'loans'. Commercial borrowing was costing a fortune only a month ago and that's if you could get it. Also we don't know that he hasn't already personally borrowed to fund what has happened so far, and how much of his wealth he may have used as collateral. Please don't get me wrong here I don't know any more about Ashley's personal finances than anyone else on this board. But there is an assumption going round that Ashley has a choice as to what he invests in the club. That may well be true but at present there is no evidence to suggest it is. Everything that has happened so far indicates he's got limited funds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Also we don't know that he hasn't already personally borrowed to fund what has happened so far, and how much of his wealth he may have used as collateral. Please don't get me wrong here I don't know any more about Ashley's personal finances than anyone else on this board. But there is an assumption going round that Ashley has a choice as to what he invests in the club. That may well be true but at present there is no evidence to suggest it is. Everything that has happened so far indicates he's got limited funds. I agree that we don't know about Ashley's personal finances, he could have invested everything with Madoff for all we know. What we can be almost sure of is that he'll have had very little at his disposal because he'll have had it invested and working for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I don't think anyone can answer that because we don't know what the finances look like as of now, the only information we have is historical. But based on what we do know the club needed £30 million of new cash coming in just to survive during the year to 30 June. There was also a further £10 million put in shortly after 30 June. How bad a situation that is depends on the extent to which Ashley is willing or is able to fund it. It is a question that should be put to him - if he'd answer it. I can't see anything that has happened since 30 June that would make the financial situation significantly better, if anything I would expect club income to be down (lower pie and pint sales, shirts, non season ticket seat sales etc). Surely not having to pay a further £8 million in interest payments, no further £5 million payments to ex managers and making an £8-£10 million profit in the transfer market would make things significantly better. I mean assuming Keegan isn't going to win some kind of case against Newcastle, which I don't see happening. Well purely from a cash perspective it seems that most transfer deals are funded by stage payments so the effect of any cash income on player sales will be flattened. It also means that Ashley has still been paying for Martins, Duff and maybe even Owen. No interest payments is a saving. But as Mick said the decision on Jonas hasn't been made yet and as you say there is the Keegan claim. I really can't see any significant factor that will have turned the cashflow round this year - certainly nothing that will have taken it to anywhere near a positive position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Former Newcastle majority shareholders Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families made almost £146m from their time at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. (Guardian) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/7882800.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Former Newcastle majority shareholders Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families made almost £146m from their time at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. (Guardian) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/7882800.stm What, that can't be right? Mike Ashley is trousering the clubs money and Shepherd was just out to spend his personal wealth on making us a success! Wasn't he? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Mongo Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Former Newcastle majority shareholders Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families made almost £146m from their time at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. (Guardian) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/7882800.stm What, that can't be right? Mike Ashley is trousering the clubs money and Shepherd was just out to spend his personal wealth on making us a success! Wasn't he? I don't think anyone minded SJH and Fantastic Fred milking the club while we were successful, but leaving the club £100m in debt while running off with a £146m swag bag is a bit nuch to stomach. Imagine if Ashley did that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Ashley still splashing the cash though... Ashley bids for Blacks Leisure 1 hour ago Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley has made an initial takeover approach for outdoor clothing firm Blacks Leisure. Mr Ashley, who already has a 29.9% stake in Blacks, will face competition for the company from private equity group Lion Capital, according to The Times. Lion Capital owns AS Adventure Group which operates the outdoor equipment and clothing chain Cotswold Outdoor. Mr Ashley, who owns Newcastle United, was also reported to be interested in buying JJB Sports' struggling lifestyle division, to which the company is planning to appoint administrators. The reports come after confirmation from Blacks on Tuesday that it had received approaches about a possible offer. Sports Direct was unavailable for comment. The company said discussions were at an early stage and there was no certainty any offer would be made. As well as 258 Millets stores and 110 Blacks Outdoor sites, the group has 41 boardwear stores under the Freespirit brand and 12 O'Neill sites. The announcement - which sent shares jumping nearly 50% - followed last month's profit warning when Blacks revealed more dire trading figures from its boardwear division. Blacks said its core business performed well, but this was offset by a 14.9% fall in boardwear like-for-like sales in the six weeks to January 3. It said the boardwear decline meant operating profits for the group were likely to be below market expectations for the year to the end of February. Blacks has revived its outdoor division by rolling out new store formats and focusing more attention on merchandising and window displays. The company dates back to 1861, when sailor Thomas Black founded a sail-making company in Greenock, Scotland. With the arrival of the steamship, the company moved into tent-making and developed into a leading outdoor retailer, renamed Blacks Outdoor in 1994. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g1I0n9RaKJUWRWHH8dBnTHCSSj-g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W. So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W. So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley? It amusing that some people who defended Shepherd putting nothing in and taking millions out in dividends yet now expect Ashley to put his hand in his own pocket, even though he already has done to keep the club going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W. So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley? He's a cockney cunt is a good a reason as any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W. So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley? I certainly don't expect that at all. Why didn't they just come out and say that the finances were in such a mess? That's my main issue, the lack of honesty and transparency. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 No one has ever claimed Shepherd spent his personal wealth on the club, Ian W. So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley? I certainly don't expect that at all. Why didn't they just come out and say that the finances were in such a mess? That's my main issue, the lack of honesty and transparency. They did, quite a few times. They even used the metaphor "was about to collapse like a house of cards", I still dont think thats going to be an excuse for them to not invest, my guess is that they're genuinely dissapointed with the lack of major investment, it'll come, im sure of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Former Newcastle majority shareholders Freddy Shepherd, Sir John Hall and their families made almost £146m from their time at St James' Park, according to figures released by the club. (Guardian) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/gossip_and_transfers/7882800.stm Sssshhh don't tell NE5, or he will spend the whole evening trying to work out a spin on it to make Shepherd and Hall the next Mother Theresa's. You know that Ashley is a money robbing bastard who hates Newcastle United, while Freddy Shepherd is just a gold old egg who brought european football to the club (despite almost killing us financially in the process). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 i'm sure freddy shepherd did once claim he was putting his personal cash into the club. technically he was but he was just buying more shares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 i'm sure freddy shepherd did once claim he was putting his personal cash into the club. technically he was but he was just buying more shares. Maybe he meant he bought a pie and a pint at halftime? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 i'm sure freddy shepherd did once claim he was putting his personal cash into the club. technically he was but he was just buying more shares. His actual claim was that he wasn't taking money out of the club when he was using his dividend to buy shares which was a lie. He was buying those shares from shareholders so not a penny went to the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 i'm sure freddy shepherd did once claim he was putting his personal cash into the club. technically he was but he was just buying more shares. His actual claim was that he wasn't taking money out of the club when he was using his dividend to buy shares which was a lie. He was buying those shares from shareholders so not a penny went to the club. Did he not stop buying additional shares back around 2004-2005? I'm sure something was mentioned quite a while ago about it since he'd almost reached a point where had he bought many more shares in the club he'd have been forced to make an offer for the rest, something that he didn't have the funds for (unless he was to offer 1p per share) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Did he not stop buying additional shares back around 2004-2005? I'm sure something was mentioned quite a while ago about it since he'd almost reached a point where had he bought many more shares in the club he'd have been forced to make an offer for the rest, something that he didn't have the funds for (unless he was to offer 1p per share) He could have got around the rule which would have meant him having to bid for the club the same way as Sir John did. He could have got his son or Brother to buy them instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 he was buying shares of SJH, who was then keeping the cash for himself and not putting into the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Did he not stop buying additional shares back around 2004-2005? I'm sure something was mentioned quite a while ago about it since he'd almost reached a point where had he bought many more shares in the club he'd have been forced to make an offer for the rest, something that he didn't have the funds for (unless he was to offer 1p per share) He could have got around the rule which would have meant him having to bid for the club the same way as Sir John did. He could have got his son or Brother to buy them instead. If anyone gets to own 30% of a public company they must make an offer for the whole lot. The shares held were actually owned by Shepherd Offshore Limited a company owned 50:50 by Fred and his brother. It tends to get forgotten that Bruce Shepherd in effect coined half of the proceeds of what is generally regarded as Shepherds wedge from the takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 If anyone gets to own 30% of a public company they must make an offer for the whole lot. The shares held were actually owned by Shepherd Offshore Limited a company owned 50:50 by Fred and his brother. It tends to get forgotten that Bruce Shepherd in effect coined half of the proceeds of what is generally regarded as Shepherds wedge from the takeover. I know that the shares were owned mainly by Shepherd Offshore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 he was buying shares of SJH, who was then keeping the cash for himself and not putting into the club No, he wasn't, he was buying them on the open market, from other people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 he was buying shares of SJH, who was then keeping the cash for himself and not putting into the club No, he wasn't, he was buying them on the open market, from other people. And furthermore for the sake of argument, what would it have to do with anything if he was? Neither Shepherd nor anyone else was putting anything into the club. I could've bought shares off the Halls with fresh money, never mind money Shepherd voted to take out of the club, but the act wouldn't have made any difference to the club's prospects in itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now