Rob W Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Ashley bought at the top of the market for both football clubs and his core business When the economy started to slide he prioritised his business and tried to ckeep costs under control at SJP the the KK affair and all the abuse happened and he couldn't come near the place so why would he pour in cash he probably hoped he could get out square but now he's trapped - no-one wnats to buy at anything like the price he paid, the club is sliding and he hasn't any idea what to do we're buggered for quite a while - until someone gets rid of ALL the dross and can rebuild a winning team from kids, cheap players and ones on loan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? oh dear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? oh dear We are talking in financial terms... oh dear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? oh dear We are talking in financial terms... oh dear as HTT said.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? oh dear We are talking in financial terms... oh dear as HTT said.......... First team performance != financial terms Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? oh dear We are talking in financial terms... oh dear We'll be paying for that zero interest of yours for years and years when we go down man. Clueless... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? oh dear We are talking in financial terms... oh dear We'll be paying for that zero interest of yours for years and years when we go down man. Clueless... It's different ****** argument you idiot. FFS never owed the same amount of money? Its his ******* debts that Ashley paid off. **** me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? oh dear We are talking in financial terms... oh dear We'll be paying for that zero interest of yours for years and years when we go down man. Clueless... It's different ****** argument you idiot. FFS never owed the same amount of money? Its his ******* debts that Ashley paid off. **** me. Idiot?! You don't even know what I'm talking about, clearly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? oh dear We are talking in financial terms... oh dear We'll be paying for that zero interest of yours for years and years when we go down man. Clueless... It's different ****** argument you idiot. FFS never owed the same amount of money? Its his ******* debts that Ashley paid off. **** me. Idiot?! You don't even know what I'm talking about, clearly. Exactly, I don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Great post UV As for debt, Mike Ashley is owed over £250m from NUFC. I can't remember the club owing so much to anyone under FS can you? Didn't Mike Ashley pay off the money we owed to banks? We owe the same amount of money, just to different people and at zero interest. Zero interest? Look at our league position, that's the interest we're paying mate. Zero then? oh dear We are talking in financial terms... oh dear as HTT said.......... First team performance != financial terms we'll see how the finances stay in top shape when the crowds go back to where they were for years pre - 1992 [just like they were in those days too ] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I'll try and have a go at some of the detail in there if I get time later! First impression is that there are a lot of good points in there UV. Just on point 2 I don't think there's any evidence that Ashley funded player purchases up front from the word go so I'm not sure the likes of Smith, Enrique and co were bought in that way. It seems pretty obvious that Nolan was, and maybe Collocini, Xisco and the other Summer 2008 transfers. The main point of my post was questioning how the previous board would have found the finance the club needed when there was nothing left to borrow against. It is wrong to think that Ashley generated the concept of cash deficits at the club. Going back to 2006 and 2007 the club soaked up more cash than it generated (I'm talking cash here not accounting losses). In 2006 the cash shortfall was £14 million and in 2007 it was £5 million. Both of these deficits and all previous deficits were funded by taking on external loan. External loan needs security and by the summer of 2007 among the loans the club had taken out were two secured on the training ground, one on future sponsorship revenue and one on future season ticket revenue obviously in addition to the stadium loan. The club had finished lower mid table, was incurring trading losses and had no assets to borrow against. With cash losses in 2006 and 2007 (and maybe in earlier years as well) what would the board have done to fund a cash loss in 2008? If the board couldn't fund it how would they have prevented a cash loss in 2008? Furthermore how would the board have found the finance to move forward (speculate to accumulate)? Football clubs are a different type of business to most but no bank will ever lend money unless it can see a way of recovering it, and it is harder now to make the case for a commercial loan than it ever was I don't think Ashley's financial running of the club has been fantastic, it seems aimed at ridding the club of external debt and making it easier to sell tbh. It certainly doesn't fit the nature of the business. But then I don't think too many people are still bigging up Ashley - and the point of my post was to ask a question about the previous regime. They may have had a cunning plan, and if so what was it? good question but any answer either way is going to be speculation now, either saying the club would do a leeds or that shepherd had other investors lined up (which he claimed at the time of the takeover), share issue, property development (detailed plans had already been drawn up) or simply banking on the extra tv money being enough. Don't think there's anyone who will argue that Shepherd didn't mess up in the last couple of years. mind you ashley's taken it to a whole new level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I can think of someone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I can think of someone. on the contrary, you are quite wrong. I never defended the appointment of Souness, unlike many people on here, some of whom you have on numerous occasions took their view rather than mine, Mandiarse immediately springs to mind. Defending him and everything he did, everybody he sold and bought, right to the end My point - if its allowed to say this again rather than be told its a potential banning offence although I'm just replying to you not that replying to others in the past made any difference - is and always has been, that in spite of their mistakes, replacing the Halls and Shepherd with better would be an extremely difficult thing to do. And that makes me, and the handful of others who thought the same, not one person, absolutely correct. Doesn't it ? I'm not asking for the remaining 2 years of my 3 years paid up season ticket back by the way, despite being absolutely gutted that we are well on the way to back to the REAL shit served up for the vast majority of the 30 years before the Halls and Shepherd raised the standards to what you and many others thought were the norm. I take it you might reply --- you haven't replied to the previous post I referred you too, just like everyone else. Strange isn't it that nobody does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I can think of someone. on the contrary, you are quite wrong. I never defended the appointment of Souness, unlike many people on here, some of whom you have on numerous occasions took their view rather than mine, Mandiarse immediately springs to mind. Defending him and everything he did, everybody he sold and bought, right to the end My point - if its allowed to say this again rather than be told its a potential banning offence although I'm just replying to you not that replying to others in the past made any difference - is and always has been, that in spite of their mistakes, replacing the Halls and Shepherd with better would be an extremely difficult thing to do. And that makes me, and the handful of others who thought the same, not one person, absolutely correct. Doesn't it ? I'm not asking for the remaining 2 years of my 3 years paid up season ticket back by the way, despite being absolutely gutted that we are well on the way to back to the REAL shit served up for the vast majority of the 30 years before the Halls and Shepherd raised the standards to what you and many others thought were the norm. I take it you might reply --- you haven't replied to the previous post I referred you too, just like everyone else. Strange isn't it that nobody does. What difference does it make if you were correct or not other than to your own satisfaction of constantly pointing it out? John Hall sold the club by choice, presumably because he wanted the money. What the club is crying out for is investment and if Hall didn't want to do it, obviously someone else has to. Ashley is doing a shit job but unless Hall or Shepherd are planning on coming back what is the point in keep banging on about them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I can think of someone. on the contrary, you are quite wrong. I never defended the appointment of Souness, unlike many people on here, some of whom you have on numerous occasions took their view rather than mine, Mandiarse immediately springs to mind. Defending him and everything he did, everybody he sold and bought, right to the end My point - if its allowed to say this again rather than be told its a potential banning offence although I'm just replying to you not that replying to others in the past made any difference - is and always has been, that in spite of their mistakes, replacing the Halls and Shepherd with better would be an extremely difficult thing to do. And that makes me, and the handful of others who thought the same, not one person, absolutely correct. Doesn't it ? I'm not asking for the remaining 2 years of my 3 years paid up season ticket back by the way, despite being absolutely gutted that we are well on the way to back to the REAL shit served up for the vast majority of the 30 years before the Halls and Shepherd raised the standards to what you and many others thought were the norm. I take it you might reply --- you haven't replied to the previous post I referred you too, just like everyone else. Strange isn't it that nobody does. What difference does it make if you were correct or not other than to your own satisfaction of constantly pointing it out? John Hall sold the club by choice, presumably because he wanted the money. What the club is crying out for is investment and if Hall didn't want to do it, obviously someone else has to. Ashley is doing a shit job but unless Hall or Shepherd are planning on coming back what is the point in keep banging on about them? in case you haven't read the thread properly, and its obvious you haven't, the reply is a direct response to the post by Dave where he said that "one person" would not agree. So I'm putting the record straight, before I am banned for posting facts about Ashley's predecessors and how they found the club when they themselves took it over. Why don't you tell me why people absurdly keep coming along and saying that a club that qualifies for europe more than any club bar 4 over a period over 15 years is shit ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I can think of someone. on the contrary, you are quite wrong. I never defended the appointment of Souness, unlike many people on here, some of whom you have on numerous occasions took their view rather than mine, Mandiarse immediately springs to mind. Defending him and everything he did, everybody he sold and bought, right to the end My point - if its allowed to say this again rather than be told its a potential banning offence although I'm just replying to you not that replying to others in the past made any difference - is and always has been, that in spite of their mistakes, replacing the Halls and Shepherd with better would be an extremely difficult thing to do. And that makes me, and the handful of others who thought the same, not one person, absolutely correct. Doesn't it ? I'm not asking for the remaining 2 years of my 3 years paid up season ticket back by the way, despite being absolutely gutted that we are well on the way to back to the REAL s*** served up for the vast majority of the 30 years before the Halls and Shepherd raised the standards to what you and many others thought were the norm. I take it you might reply --- you haven't replied to the previous post I referred you too, just like everyone else. Strange isn't it that nobody does. What difference does it make if you were correct or not other than to your own satisfaction of constantly pointing it out? John Hall sold the club by choice, presumably because he wanted the money. What the club is crying out for is investment and if Hall didn't want to do it, obviously someone else has to. Ashley is doing a s*** job but unless Hall or Shepherd are planning on coming back what is the point in keep banging on about them? in case you haven't read the thread properly, and its obvious you haven't, the reply is a direct response to the post by Dave where he said that "one person" would not agree. So I'm putting the record straight, before I am banned for posting facts about Ashley's predecessors and how they found the club when they themselves took it over. Why don't you tell me why people absurdly keep coming along and saying that a club that qualifies for europe more than any club bar 4 over a period over 15 years is s*** ? in the same way we were s*** 1 year after qualifying for europe in the 70's. (you know nobody is saying we were shit for the entire 15years but it doesn't suit your purpose) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Manchester City, Newcastle and Middlesbrough have shirt deals that expire this summer. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article5993287.ece Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistle17 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 THE value of Newcastle United will be slashed by half – from around £200million to £100million – if the club is relegated to the Championship. Now there are fears among the Toon army that desperate owner Mike Ashley, who is also having a torrid time with his sports retail business, could stun the football world by taking the famous North East club into administration. When he decided to sell up, amid the furore of Kevin Keegan’s abrupt departure in September, it was believed that the sportswear magnate was hoping for a huge profit on his £230m investment. There was talk that the multi-millionaire was looking for a figure in excess of £400m. Now, with the credit crunch having undermined the world’s economy, financial experts have placed a value of around £200m on a club fighting for its Premier League life. A drop into the Championship would wipe another £100m off the asking price leaving Ashley in a financial hole. He announced at the end of December that he had taken the club off the market but it is believed that privately he is very much open to offers. They have not been forthcoming and that has led to informed chatter in the financial world that Ashley has not ruled out the stark threat of administration. It would only be implemented as a last resort and not until Newcastle’s Premier League destiny is decided. To call in the Receiver now would mean a likely nine-point deduction and almost certain relegation, something Ashley would not welcome through his desire to sell. The threat, however, will hang over the Geordies during the summer months that they could start next season minus nine points unless Ashley can attract a buyer. A worried insider admitted: “We are looking at a Leeds United scenario. I don’t think people realise how serious things are at St James’ Park. Relegation would make it a complete disaster.” Neil Mitchell of the Newcastle United Supporters’ Club added: “NUSC have been made aware of the growing rumours of this catastrophic possibility over the last week and it’s now causing grave concern. "These really are becoming dark and grave times for all fans of Newcastle United.” To make matters worse it appears that Ashley has ignored advice from within the club to appoint a temporary boss, to help coaches Chris Hughton and Colin Calderwood, who increasingly appear out of their depth. Terry Venables and the Alan Curbishley have been mentioned but Ashley is clinging to the hope that Joe Kinnear, despite undergoing a triple heart-bypass operation, will be back by the end of next month. That could be too late if Newcastle lose games against Chelsea and Stoke. It is not certain either that Kinnear will be given the all-clear by his specialist that would mean him being back before the end of the season. Ashley was last week accused by business rival and Wigan chairman Dave Whelan of stripping Newcastle of their dignity. The threat in the coming months is that Newcastle could be stripped of points. ------------------ :weep: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 My god that's fucking laughable. Informed chatter in the financial world?, so informed it makes no financial sense what so ever. Apparently he's going to call in receivers so he can force his own company to sell off HIS own assets for a fraction of their price to give him some of his own money? What am I missing here?, is the writer just brain dead? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 My god that's fucking laughable. Informed chatter in the financial world?, so informed it makes no financial sense what so ever. Apparently he's going to call in receivers so he can force his own company to sell off HIS own assets for a fraction of their price to give him some of his own money? What am I missing here?, is the writer just brain dead? aye, its just gossip to sell newspapers isn't it ? Just like all those stories of Keegan being unhappy........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 My god that's fucking laughable. Informed chatter in the financial world?, so informed it makes no financial sense what so ever. Apparently he's going to call in receivers so he can force his own company to sell off HIS own assets for a fraction of their price to give him some of his own money? What am I missing here?, is the writer just brain dead? aye, its just gossip to sell newspapers isn't it ? Just like all those stories of Keegan being unhappy........ I know its probably too much to ask but could you actually post something with some kind of substance rather than the usual frivolous sarcasm? I mean the comparison you're making here is pointless. Instead why don't you back up the journalist and help others of this forum by imparting some wisdom. Tell us what sense there is in Ashley putting the club into administration when he holds 100% of the debt himself? If there is anything for Ashley to gain from that situation I'd be inclined to believe it to a degree at least, because as I said yesterday I'd put nothing past the man. Its just that, well this story makes no fucking sense what so ever to me. I see no advantages for Ashley at all, only problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 My god that's f***ing laughable. Informed chatter in the financial world?, so informed it makes no financial sense what so ever. Apparently he's going to call in receivers so he can force his own company to sell off HIS own assets for a fraction of their price to give him some of his own money? What am I missing here?, is the writer just brain dead? aye, its just gossip to sell newspapers isn't it ? Just like all those stories of Keegan being unhappy........ And the stories about us signing Aimar, Henry and Beckham. Oh wait.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 My god that's fucking laughable. Informed chatter in the financial world?, so informed it makes no financial sense what so ever. Apparently he's going to call in receivers so he can force his own company to sell off HIS own assets for a fraction of their price to give him some of his own money? What am I missing here?, is the writer just brain dead? aye, its just gossip to sell newspapers isn't it ? Just like all those stories of Keegan being unhappy........ I know its probably too much to ask but could you actually post something with some kind of substance rather than the usual sarcastic bollocks. I mean the comparison you're making here is pointless. Instead why don't you back up the journalist and help others of this forum by imparting some wisdom. Tell us what sense there is in Ashley putting the club into administration when he holds 100% of the debt himself? Its a genuine question, tell me please. I've posted plenty of comments with "substance" in the past on various things. And things of wisdom, but others have taken no notice because they didn't want to listen. They weren't sarcastic, they weren't meant to be funny, and they weren't meant to be a wind up. Why don't you tell me why you still appear to believe in Ashley when everything he has done is pointing the club downwards and the relegation gun and huge financial loss in spite of people insisting he was "sorting out the books and clearing the debts" is pointing right at us ? 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