Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Go on then, enlighten me. If Ashley wanted to swap his loans into shares who is going to buy the shares? He paying bills earlier and if he wants to make the club solvent he should transfer his loan into shares like I have. Why all the Ashley apologists? Where did I say anyone was going to buy the shares? I was replying to Mick's post regarding making the club solvent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 SSF1M - Sorry not too good at posting quotes! If I've misread the meaing of 'transfer his loan into shares' then I apologise. And haven't got a fucking clue what you mean! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Like the other poster, yes I saw those accounts just as he will have before he made the statement. Paying creditors early, having to pay off debts because you didnt do any fuckin due diligence are all things known before he made those lies, now feel free to apologise on his behalf. The fact that he didn't do due dilligence is something he's had to pay for, not us. He's done that while keeping the club paying bills when due, in other words, he's ensured that the club is solvent. He paying bills earlier and if he wants to make the club solvent he should transfer his loan into shares like I have. Why all the Ashley apologists? And who is going to buy the shares? If it was that easy the club would have been sold between September and now I suggest you just be quiet now son, you havent got a fuckin clue what you're talking about. Good point. Colo is clueless when it comes to financial matters. Aye, he's only the number 1 accountant at accountants are us in the accountancy capital of the world. You wouldn't know it like He's number 2 tbf Number 4 actually Number 3 is that Zero chap who posts on here. 2 is Gemmil (semi retired) Number one is obviusly Bob Murray You cunt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Like the other poster, yes I saw those accounts just as he will have before he made the statement. Paying creditors early, having to pay off debts because you didnt do any fuckin due diligence are all things known before he made those lies, now feel free to apologise on his behalf. The fact that he didn't do due dilligence is something he's had to pay for, not us. He's done that while keeping the club paying bills when due, in other words, he's ensured that the club is solvent. He paying bills earlier and if he wants to make the club solvent he should transfer his loan into shares like I have. Why all the Ashley apologists? And who is going to buy the shares? If it was that easy the club would have been sold between September and now I suggest you just be quiet now son, you havent got a fuckin clue what you're talking about. Good point. Colo is clueless when it comes to financial matters. Aye, he's only the number 1 accountant at accountants are us in the accountancy capital of the world. You wouldn't know it like He's number 2 tbf Number 4 actually Number 3 is that Zero chap who posts on here. 2 is Gemmil (semi retired) Number one is obviusly Bob Murray You cunt If you open the door then I'm going to use it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Ive seen that Years accounts yes, just as had he when he made the statement to which Im referring to. I might be wrong but I'm sure he said that he would put the money in, I can't remember him saying that it was specifically for transfers. You are wrong. No, you are wrong. Well there's an article that says otherwise, in an NUFC publication, with Mike Ashley's words. But saying that, NUFC are denying their own publications with regards to KK's constructive dismissal claim arent they. Not my job. You are the one accusing him of of saying things with nothing to back it up. I'll have a Come on. As his few words are dissected to bits, it shouldn't be to hard for you to find the quotes. Ive looked on the forum where I initially posted the scanned article, I couldnt find it, if you have the quote post it. I wouldn't be arguing with you if I had the quote, and clearly others have not come accross it either. I'm genuinly interested. You accuse him of saying these things but have nothing to back it up so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SellSholaFor1M Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 SSF1M - Sorry not too good at posting quotes! If I've misread the meaing of 'transfer his loan into shares' then I apologise. And haven't got a f***ing clue what you mean! Apology accepted, you dont understand the mechanics of the double entry or what ; ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 on itv now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SellSholaFor1M Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Ive seen that Years accounts yes, just as had he when he made the statement to which Im referring to. I might be wrong but I'm sure he said that he would put the money in, I can't remember him saying that it was specifically for transfers. You are wrong. No, you are wrong. Well there's an article that says otherwise, in an NUFC publication, with Mike Ashley's words. But saying that, NUFC are denying their own publications with regards to KK's constructive dismissal claim arent they. Not my job. You are the one accusing him of of saying things with nothing to back it up. I'll have a Come on. As his few words are dissected to bits, it shouldn't be to hard for you to find the quotes. Ive looked on the forum where I initially posted the scanned article, I couldnt find it, if you have the quote post it. I wouldn't be arguing with you if I had the quote, and clearly others have not come accross it either. I'm genuinly interested. You accuse him of saying these things but have nothing to back it up so far. If I could find the scanned article I'd have posted it by now, someone will have it, its just one example of the many in it anyway, Im still amazed by the apologists attempting to split hairs anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Did anyone record the stream, per chance? Would like to listen to it, if possible. I didn't realise I could listen until gone 8pm, I've got over an hour of it though. I'll upload it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Thank you, Wullie. Top man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Peasepud says it'll be online at some point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 SSF1M - Sorry not too good at posting quotes! If I've misread the meaing of 'transfer his loan into shares' then I apologise. And haven't got a f***ing clue what you mean! Apology accepted, you dont understand the mechanics of the double entry or what ; ) Right, I must be missing something obvious here (apologies for the boring post everyone). Ashley puts in £100m as a loan Cr Loan Account £100m Dr Bank £100m i.e The clubs bank account increase by £100m and the club owes Ashley £100m Now Ashley has put £100m into the club as debt and now wants to convert it to shares Cr Share Capital £100m Dr Loan Account £100m i.e. no new money is put into the club. So neither Ashley or the club are better off cash wise The only way converting debt to shares can raise money for the club is by selling the shares outside of existing ownership Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SellSholaFor1M Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nobody mentioned the club or Ashley being better off cash wise, just as they didnt mention selling shares. 100% on the double entry though Colo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Here you are BG: http://rapidshare.com/files/194022632/NUSC.mp3 Just missing the first half hour or so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 SSF1M - Sorry not too good at posting quotes! If I've misread the meaing of 'transfer his loan into shares' then I apologise. And haven't got a f***ing clue what you mean! Apology accepted, you dont understand the mechanics of the double entry or what ; ) Right, I must be missing something obvious here (apologies for the boring post everyone). Ashley puts in £100m as a loan Cr Loan Account £100m Dr Bank £100m i.e The clubs bank account increase by £100m and the club owes Ashley £100m Now Ashley has put £100m into the club as debt and now wants to convert it to shares Cr Share Capital £100m Dr Loan Account £100m i.e. no new money is put into the club. So neither Ashley or the club are better off cash wise The only way converting debt to shares can raise money for the club is by selling the shares outside of existing ownership You've just dropped down to number 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Pitty Ashley himself didn't read the accounts before he bought the club eh... He did read the accounts before buying the club, he didn't do due dilligence. The only surprise was the sponsorship money having been spent and having to pay the loan off early. Ashley knew about £70 million of debt before buying the club. Be quiet Mick, people don't want to hear that. So being a tight cunt was his plan all along? Pitty Ashley himself didn't read the accounts before he bought the club eh... He did read the accounts before buying the club, he didn't do due dilligence. The only surprise was the sponsorship money having been spent and having to pay the loan off early. Ashley knew about £70 million of debt before buying the club. Be quiet Mick, people don't want to hear that. So being a tight cunt was his plan all along? Can you confirm Mick is wrong? We'll wait and see. [LLO/] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nobody mentioned the club or Ashley being better off cash wise, just as they didnt mention selling shares. 100% on the double entry though Colo OK then, So you are on about a paper change of moving the debt to equity so as to improve the net assets of the club? You'll know then that the club would only be classed as insolvent if it had net current liabiliites? As Ashley has guaranteed that the loans will not be called in within 1 year they form no part of net liabilities and therefore hold the same weight as equity. Again no benefit to the club, Ashley just doesn't have to sign the same statement year in year out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SellSholaFor1M Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nobody mentioned the club or Ashley being better off cash wise, just as they didnt mention selling shares. 100% on the double entry though Colo OK then, So you are on about a paper change of moving the debt to equity so as to improve the net assets of the club? You'll know then that the club would only be classed as insolvent if it had net current liabiliites? As Ashley has guaranteed that the loans will not be called in within 1 year they form no part of net liabilities and therefore hold the same weight as equity. Again no benefit to the club, Ashley just doesn't have to sign the same statement year in year out Correct, so the club would be solvent, we got there in the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Nobody mentioned the club or Ashley being better off cash wise, just as they didnt mention selling shares. 100% on the double entry though Colo OK then, So you are on about a paper change of moving the debt to equity so as to improve the net assets of the club? You'll know then that the club would only be classed as insolvent if it had net current liabiliites? As Ashley has guaranteed that the loans will not be called in within 1 year they form no part of net liabilities and therefore hold the same weight as equity. Again no benefit to the club, Ashley just doesn't have to sign the same statement year in year out Correct, so the club would be solvent, we got there in the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Ive seen that Years accounts yes, just as had he when he made the statement to which Im referring to. I might be wrong but I'm sure he said that he would put the money in, I can't remember him saying that it was specifically for transfers. You are wrong. No, you are wrong. Well there's an article that says otherwise, in an NUFC publication, with Mike Ashley's words. But saying that, NUFC are denying their own publications with regards to KK's constructive dismissal claim arent they. Not my job. You are the one accusing him of of saying things with nothing to back it up. I'll have a Come on. As his few words are dissected to bits, it shouldn't be to hard for you to find the quotes. Ive looked on the forum where I initially posted the scanned article, I couldnt find it, if you have the quote post it. I wouldn't be arguing with you if I had the quote, and clearly others have not come accross it either. I'm genuinly interested. You accuse him of saying these things but have nothing to back it up so far. If I could find the scanned article I'd have posted it by now, someone will have it, its just one example of the many in it anyway, Im still amazed by the apologists attempting to split hairs anyway. Apologists splitting hairs? Flippin' nora, I am interested whether he actually said what you are accusing him of saying. There is a massive difference between him saying he was willing to plough £20 million a year into the club (which in the accounts has now run to £30 million), and whether as you would have us believe, he said that there would be £20 million for transfers (on top of any subsidy if the club failed to break even). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Fuck me this is fascinating. I don't think SSF1M is talking about putting extra cash in. I think he's merely saying that if the club wanted to have a solvent balance sheet, you capitalise the loan so the company's equity goes up by 100m and the company's liabilities go down by 100m, thereby presumably making it more solvent as share capital will exceed accumulated losses. But then I'm not an accountant so there you go. It would also mean that Ashley could only recoup his cash by selling the shares rather than just calling in the loan, unless he then wanted to reduce the share capital which from memory isn't easy (unless the shares issued are redeemable preference shares). I haven't read the rest of this thread but there's laways this blurring between what the owner has 'invested' and what he has 'put in'. From Ashley's point of view he has put in a quarter of a billion but from our point of view he has put in 100m i.e. this is the extra cash that has gone into the club. The other 150m is what it cost Ashley to buy the shares. I don't care about that - if he couldn't afford it, he shouldn't have bought it. It's like buying a house in need of repair and letting it fall down because the purchase price was too expensive. According to Shepherd he didn't look at the books properly. Of course if you believe the club was going bust we should probably be thankful. The question is whether Ashley shouldered aside another buyer who would have been willing to buy us. Both of these points are just speculation and not worth losing sleep over, we're stuck with Ashley now and have to make the best of it. FWIW I'm hoping we'll be on an upward curve if we can just survive this season. Our wage bill will start to reduce when Owen and Viduka leave in the summer for starters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Fuck me this is fascinating. I don't think SSF1M is talking about putting extra cash in. I think he's merely saying that if the club wanted to have a solvent balance sheet, you capitalise the loan so the company's equity goes up by 100m and the company's liabilities go down by 100m, thereby presumably making it more solvent as share capital will exceed accumulated losses. But then I'm not an accountant so there you go. It would also mean that Ashley could only recoup his cash by selling the shares rather than just calling in the loan, unless he then wanted to reduce the share capital which from memory isn't easy (unless the shares issued are redeemable preference shares). As I highlighted in bold though, as long as Ashley signs a statement confirming that the loan is not to be called in within 1 year it makes no difference if its a long or share capital in making the club solvent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Fuck me this is fascinating. I don't think SSF1M is talking about putting extra cash in. I think he's merely saying that if the club wanted to have a solvent balance sheet, you capitalise the loan so the company's equity goes up by 100m and the company's liabilities go down by 100m, thereby presumably making it more solvent as share capital will exceed accumulated losses. But then I'm not an accountant so there you go. It would also mean that Ashley could only recoup his cash by selling the shares rather than just calling in the loan, unless he then wanted to reduce the share capital which from memory isn't easy (unless the shares issued are redeemable preference shares). I haven't read the rest of this thread but there's laways this blurring between what the owner has 'invested' and what he has 'put in'. From Ashley's point of view he has put in a quarter of a billion but from our point of view he has put in 100m i.e. this is the extra cash that has gone into the club. The other 150m is what it cost Ashley to buy the shares. I don't care about that - if he couldn't afford it, he shouldn't have bought it. It's like buying a house in need of repair and letting it fall down because the purchase price was too expensive. According to Shepherd he didn't look at the books properly. Of course if you believe the club was going bust we should probably be thankful. The question is whether Ashley shouldered aside another buyer who would have been willing to buy us. Both of these points are just speculation and not worth losing sleep over, we're stuck with Ashley now and have to make the best of it. FWIW I'm hoping we'll be on an upward curve if we can just survive this season. Our wage bill will start to reduce when Owen and Viduka leave in the summer for starters. Simple sensible posting. Aaaand relax. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I accept that Ashley cannot sell the club but I cannot understand how he cannot see that Llambias and co. who are supposedly running the club for him are not making a very good job of it. For Llambias not to communicate to the media or supporters is disgraceful. The club needs leadership and to hide behind the occasionally anonymous statements on the official website is pathetic. I presume he is the person who represents the club at Premier League meetings etc in which case, he is the figurehead of the club. By refusing to speak in public, it indicates to me an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their decisions. (I am not so concerned with the lack of communication from Ashley because you don't hear from the owners of Man Utd, Blackburn, Spurs, Sunderland, Bolton, Chelsea etc. However, you do hear from David Gill, John Williams, Daniel Levy, Niall Quinn, Phil Gartside, Peter Kenyon). And how is Wise qualified to do the job he has been hired for? Originally, we were told he was in charge of recruitment for the Academy but latterly, I have seen comments in the press saying that he is running the club. In what way? Considering he has recently been a manager and a player, how can he have so little empathy with the manager's struggle with the size of the squad and the lack of players in certain positions. As a manager, would he have been happy for someone to buy the players for him. His managerial experience was in the lower leagues so he would not have been scouting Premier League standard players. The press have also reported players trying to have meetings with Wise and being refused. How would he have felt as a player or manager in a similar situation. We don't know whether it is Wise is responsible for the senior players coming in but he is credited with the Academy players. In this respect, we won't know if he is doing a good job for a few years yet. With the emphasis on developing young players which is a long-term strategy, how come Richard Money wanted to leave for Swindon only a few months after taking on the role. City's Academy Manager has been there for years. Why is Money still having to cover the reserves as we have not replaced Adam Sadler. And JFK. If Ashley only wants a competent mid-table team so that Premiership survival is guaranteed, how can he hope to get that with this joke of a manager. He needs a manager who can work with a limited budget, develop young players and make the best of the playing resources available - and someone who does not embarrass himself every time he speaks to the media. I cannot believe that Ashley seriously expects JFK to do anything else other than struggle and ultimately fail. By letting his mates run the club for him, Ashley is destroying the club. With good personnel, he could have a decent mid-table team with the current resources. The supporters would not be so disgruntled and neither would the players and maybe he might make a little more money. I accept the finances are not great but I do believe with different people running the club and a different manager that improvements could be made and I cannot for the life of me understand why Ashley (as a supposed football fan) cannot see this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I accept that Ashley cannot sell the club but I cannot understand how he cannot see that Llambias and co. who are supposedly running the club for him are not making a very good job of it. For Llambias not to communicate to the media or supporters is disgraceful. The club needs leadership and to hide behind the occasionally anonymous statements on the official website is pathetic. I presume he is the person who represents the club at Premier League meetings etc in which case, he is the figurehead of the club. By refusing to speak in public, it indicates to me an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their decisions. (I am not so concerned with the lack of communication from Ashley because you don't hear from the owners of Man Utd, Blackburn, Spurs, Sunderland, Bolton, Chelsea etc. However, you do hear from David Gill, John Williams, Daniel Levy, Niall Quinn, Phil Gartside, Peter Kenyon). And how is Wise qualified to do the job he has been hired for? Originally, we were told he was in charge of recruitment for the Academy but latterly, I have seen comments in the press saying that he is running the club. In what way? Considering he has recently been a manager and a player, how can he have so little empathy with the manager's struggle with the size of the squad and the lack of players in certain positions. As a manager, would he have been happy for someone to buy the players for him. His managerial experience was in the lower leagues so he would not have been scouting Premier League standard players. The press have also reported players trying to have meetings with Wise and being refused. How would he have felt as a player or manager in a similar situation. We don't know whether it is Wise is responsible for the senior players coming in but he is credited with the Academy players. In this respect, we won't know if he is doing a good job for a few years yet. With the emphasis on developing young players which is a long-term strategy, how come Richard Money wanted to leave for Swindon only a few months after taking on the role. City's Academy Manager has been there for years. Why is Money still having to cover the reserves as we have not replaced Adam Sadler. And JFK. If Ashley only wants a competent mid-table team so that Premiership survival is guaranteed, how can he hope to get that with this joke of a manager. He needs a manager who can work with a limited budget, develop young players and make the best of the playing resources available - and someone who does not embarrass himself every time he speaks to the media. I cannot believe that Ashley seriously expects JFK to do anything else other than struggle and ultimately fail. By letting his mates run the club for him, Ashley is destroying the club. With good personnel, he could have a decent mid-table team with the current resources. The supporters would not be so disgruntled and neither would the players and maybe he might make a little more money. I accept the finances are not great but I do believe with different people running the club and a different manager that improvements could be made and I cannot for the life of me understand why Ashley (as a supposed football fan) cannot see this. 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