Financial meltdown?

[Offshore]

We were on a downward spiral then and are continuing that now.

 

How far further we fall before we reach our bottom will be answered by the end of May.

 

 

[NE5]

Our finances were much, much worse under FFS than they are atm under Ashley.

 

It was a matter of 'when' not 'if' as to NUFC going bust.

 

I can't remember the club being in over £250m of debt under FS like. Now it is and boy are we paying for it. The debt levels under FS were worrying but manageable all the same. Unlike Ashley who it appears doesn't recognise at all the seriousness of the situation we are in, FS did hence the appointment of Sam Allardyce, a manager capable of doing wonders on a small budget and building from the bottom up. Oh and when the club goes down.... it will make the level of debt we were in under FS seem like pennies. So much for Ashley's plan eh.

 

 

why don't you answer him instead of behaving like a clueless sexually frustrated woman 

[Matt]

I can't remember the club being in over £250m of debt under FS like. Now it is and boy are we paying for it. The debt levels under FS were worrying but manageable all the same.

 

We're not under £250m of debt. SJHL owes this, but that includes all the money that was used to buy the shares of the club. The only person SJHL owes money is Mike Ashley. We are under no more or less debt than we would otherwise have been. Monies injected by Ashley that at in reality unlikely to be recovered in the long term have been classed as debt when really this is a little misleading (similar to Comrade A of Chelsea).

 

This club is, as it was before the takeover, a rubbish business proposition in an industry where its very hard to consistently make money. It can only ever exist as a act of philanthropy or as a personal prize.

[themanupstairs]

But he's right though, how could they afford to finance the continued losses the club has made, especially while spending big in the transfer market?  We lost £35 million last season without spending anything on players and that had to be finances by Ashley's own cash.

 

so relegation due to lack of investment and zero ambition is the answer ?

 

Shame on those who scorn the people who gave us the best decade and a half of the last 50 years by a million miles.

 

As HTL said yesterday, how many of you actually thought we were winding you up, when only a handful of people including me and him knew what we were talking about.

 

You should be telling the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal how they are doing it all wrong, and their priority should be to make a profit and sell their highest earning players.

 

 

 

Answer his question instead of babbling on like a sexually frustrated woman

 

there are dozens of "questions" I've asked people on here.........and you haven't told anybody to directly answer me.

 

My reply is in the league positions of the club during the Halls and Shepherd, the progress of the club, the full to capacity expanded stadium, the european qualifications, the top quality footballers, and the FACT that the club couldn't sell itself for 2.5m quid in 1991 and at the end of the Halls and Shepherd was sold for anything between 100m and 200m quid. 

 

If you are one of these clueless idiots who think the last few years under the Halls and Shepherd were s*** , refer to my previous reply.

 

If not, then - as nobody says anything about your daft comment about "sexually frustrated woman", I'm going to tell you that you are a stupid daft clueless c*** and maybe different banning rules will be applied to me ......... but maybe I'm wrong, and I suppose one or two people will like to prove me wrong so lets see what they do.

 

The Halls and Shepherd would never have sat back and watched this club go down like this, while making profits. They saved the club from the very situation it is heading for , you clueless b****** [name calling again.........]

 

Lets see who gets banned for abuse here  If I'm banned for this it conclusively proves there are different rules for different people .......

 

 

 

 

 

You really are a piece of work

 

Likening your answers to those of a woman who isn't getting laid is the same as calling you a useless daft c*** now is it?

 

By your own admission, and you say FS would have never allowed the club to go down, he hired Allardyce to run the club on a shoe-string budget. Let's say Ashley didn't come anywhere near the club, and Allardyce didn't do so well for FS. What do you think the chairman would have done? Backed him with more money in January (taking us even DEEPER into debt), or sacked him, brought in yet ANOTHER manager, and backed HIM in turn with more cash hence taking the club deeper into debt?

 

The reason I'm posting smilies and not replying with full answers to some of the bollocks I'm reading is that it's already been done to death, and I've already replied with my tuppence countless times. I have yet to read however, a reply from you, answering the question that Teasy has asked you. Oh, and you can't really do anything but laugh at that post from HTT.

[mrmojorisin75]

Our finances were much, much worse under FFS than they are atm under Ashley.

 

It was a matter of 'when' not 'if' as to NUFC going bust.

 

I can't remember the club being in over £250m of debt under FS like. Now it is and boy are we paying for it. The debt levels under FS were worrying but manageable all the same. Unlike Ashley who it appears doesn't recognise at all the seriousness of the situation we are in, FS did hence the appointment of Sam Allardyce, a manager capable of doing wonders on a small budget and building from the bottom up. Oh and when the club goes down.... it will make the level of debt we were in under FS seem like pennies. So much for Ashley's plan eh.

 

We are not £250 million in debt. Ashley paid about £130 million for the club and has loaned at least £120 mllion since. The amount paid for the club is not debt.

 

The question that will not go away, it has been asked on here several times but no one can answer it, is how would the previous board have financed the club if they had still been in control? The glib answer that all successful football clubs have debt does not cut it, other clubs have debt because someone is prepared to lend it, meaning that they can demonstrate to the lender that the debt is secured and has a prospect of repayment. Who would have loaned us more money in the situation we were in? It is like you have a 100% mortgage on your house, everything in your house (furniture, kitchen appliances etc) and your car are bought on HP - plus your annual income is less than than your annual costs.  Now go and find someone to lend you some money in the current climate to allow you to speculate to accumulate...

 

There are people on this board, like me, who aren't Ashley believers. In my case I think he is a chancer who made some money floating a chain of downmarket sports retail shops at a grossly inflated value. He has bought us to show off to his mates and is now way out of his depth. We all know that there are indefensible actions relating to the Ashley regime. But until someone answers the above fundamental question about the previous regime it is hard to put the current shambles into perspective.     

 

superb post quayside, gets to the heart of the matter...i'm with you on all points

 

is it possible for someone to get a clock up on the banner of the site adding up the days/hours/minutes 'til this question is answered?  it'll need to run pretty fucking high mind

[sicsfingeredmong]

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part, a so-called multi-year plan as peddled by Llabarse and Co. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect relating to above paragraph being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

[madras]

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

man utd can carry their debt due to their turnover and profitability.

 

i refer you to quaysiders post.

[themanupstairs]

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part, a so-called multi-year plan as peddled by Llabarse and Co. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect relating to above paragraph being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

 

We're nowhere near Man Utd as a club ffs!!! For one, Glazier came in, and kept the same footballing set-up! Man Utd was superbly run prior to the takeover!! They didn't have a managerial merry-go-round, they didn't have an ageing over paid squad! they didn't have a useless and dysfunctional academy and youth set-up! You cannot even begin to compare us with Man Utd!!! We had already fallen way way way behind them in terms of footballing institutions years ago. If we had won that title in '95, we may have had a chance. That chance was blown by Graham fucking Fenton.

[sicsfingeredmong]

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

man utd can carry their debt due to their turnover and profitability.

 

i refer you to quaysiders post.

 

Their strength in the Asian market was cited as the contributing factor as to why they chewed up the debt levied upon the club - via Glaziers borrowing - so quickly. It wasn't attributed to their domestic standing.

 

Do you believe a mid-table hovering Man United would achieved similar results ie. the debt aspect just mentioned & the Asian market?

 

 

[madras]

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

man utd can carry their debt due to their turnover and profitability.

 

i refer you to quaysiders post.

 

Their strength in the Asian market was cited as the contributing factor as to why they chewed up the debt levied upon the club - via Glaziers borrowing - so quickly. It wasn't attributed to their domestic standing.

 

Do you believe a mid-table hovering Man United would achieved similar results ie. the debt aspect just mentioned & the Asian market?

 

 

"contributing factor".....so it's wasn't the only basis, it's almost as if you forget they were making sizeable profits for years before that and guess what.....that makes it easier to finance and obtain credit/debt.

 

and the 2nd bit is plain silly as you are answering your own question.

[TRon]

Our finances were much, much worse under FFS than they are atm under Ashley.

 

It was a matter of 'when' not 'if' as to NUFC going bust.

 

I can't remember the club being in over £250m of debt under FS like. Now it is and boy are we paying for it. The debt levels under FS were worrying but manageable all the same. Unlike Ashley who it appears doesn't recognise at all the seriousness of the situation we are in, FS did hence the appointment of Sam Allardyce, a manager capable of doing wonders on a small budget and building from the bottom up. Oh and when the club goes down.... it will make the level of debt we were in under FS seem like pennies. So much for Ashley's plan eh.

 

We are not £250 million in debt. Ashley paid about £130 million for the club and has loaned at least £120 mllion since. The amount paid for the club is not debt.

 

The question that will not go away, it has been asked on here several times but no one can answer it, is how would the previous board have financed the club if they had still been in control? The glib answer that all successful football clubs have debt does not cut it, other clubs have debt because someone is prepared to lend it, meaning that they can demonstrate to the lender that the debt is secured and has a prospect of repayment. Who would have loaned us more money in the situation we were in? It is like you have a 100% mortgage on your house, everything in your house (furniture, kitchen appliances etc) and your car are bought on HP - plus your annual income is less than than your annual costs.  Now go and find someone to lend you some money in the current climate to allow you to speculate to accumulate...

 

There are people on this board, like me, who aren't Ashley believers. In my case I think he is a chancer who made some money floating a chain of downmarket sports retail shops at a grossly inflated value. He has bought us to show off to his mates and is now way out of his depth. We all know that there are indefensible actions relating to the Ashley regime. But until someone answers the above fundamental question about the previous regime it is hard to put the current shambles into perspective.     

 

This is my take on it as well. Ashley has had his chance and proven to be woefully off the radar in how to run a club on the football side of it. This doesn't change the fact that Shepherd and co were heading up shit creek and were bailed out by Ashley buying the club.

[sicsfingeredmong]

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part, a so-called multi-year plan as peddled by Llabarse and Co. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect relating to above paragraph being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

 

We're nowhere near Man Utd as a club ffs!!! For one, Glazier came in, and kept the same footballing set-up! Man Utd was superbly run prior to the takeover!! They didn't have a managerial merry-go-round, they didn't have an ageing over paid squad! they didn't have a useless and dysfunctional academy and youth set-up! You cannot even begin to compare us with Man Utd!!! We had already fallen way way way behind them in terms of footballing institutions years ago. If we had won that title in '95, we may have had a chance. That chance was blown by Graham f***ing Fenton.

 

I never suggested we were on the same level pegging, hence the phrase 'on a different scale'. That was obviously lost upon you at the time.

 

The phrase mentioned applies both to overall market strength - both home & abroad - and the sort of spending undertaken by the Glaziers to maintain their status on this football business front ie. result-driven market appeal.

 

As for the points placed in bold. All overseen by just one bloke, the most important man at the club - the manager. The very essence and the core of their respective and successful set-ups, all undermined by Ashley's whoosh woo woo Continental system. A system whom the likes of Wenger and i dare say it Ferguson wouldn't work within either.

 

Will you go on record to suggest the next listed signings - Gavilan, Bramble, Viana, Bernard, Ambrose, N'Zogbia under Robson, Dyer & Domi under Gullit.... project type/youth players - were not overseen by the managers in question and that we didn't have a similar set-up in place. Admittedly we didn't have the same far-reaching scouting network in place. But nonetheless the manager oversaw which youngsters were brought inot the fold.

 

I've repeatedly stated from the outset that i never expected a 100m spending spree over a couple of Summers in the wake Ashley's take-over, nor did i expect the club do come in with the sort of money thrown for the youngsters earmarked as the tools of requirement in order to replicate to Arsenal youth-driven model. I've previously cited the desultory pittance we offered for Delph as the obvious example - ie. of us not spending the required amount needed to poach the higher echelons of the youth talent pool - in the Summer transfer window non-event, a window where the top brass put the manager's most valued players on sale behind his back.

 

Before comparisons are made to the expenditure layed out for Rose, and what Leeds accepted. With regards to Delph, at a similar age to Rose when the latter moved to Spurs, he is more a player who fits into the mould of somebody who is more likely to make an immediate impact and that's purely down to physical attributes when compared to the impish Rose. By comparison Rose waas a riskier prospect, a longer-term reach hence a Leeds - a club noted for their academy/talent production line - for any club willing to gamble on the scope of improvement ie. to make an impact at EPL level. And in Rose's case there was a contractual issue at hand, which featured heavily in the tiny amount Spurs payed for him. This contractual issue, with regards to him quitting Leeds' academy, has already been posted elsewhere.

 

This is a shocking indictment levied upon the Ashley regime, in the wake of their much mooted Arsenal model talk.

 

I suppose the likes of Nile Ranger, by sheer fluke, will consistently fall out of trees and into their lap........will they?

 

 

[sicsfingeredmong]

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

man utd can carry their debt due to their turnover and profitability.

 

i refer you to quaysiders post.

 

Their strength in the Asian market was cited as the contributing factor as to why they chewed up the debt levied upon the club - via Glaziers borrowing - so quickly. It wasn't attributed to their domestic standing.

 

Do you believe a mid-table hovering Man United would achieved similar results ie. the debt aspect just mentioned & the Asian market?

 

 

"contributing factor".....so it's wasn't the only basis, it's almost as if you forget they were making sizeable profits for years before that and guess what.....that makes it easier to finance and obtain credit/debt.

 

and the 2nd bit is plain silly as you are answering your own question.

 

............... but you see a mid-table Man Utd outfit would no longer have the benefit of flogging off 'Beckham no.7' in Asia.

 

Funny that. A while ago some here - a while ago - cited that as one reason as to why should've made a move for the same player, to make minor dent into the same market.

 

 

[themanupstairs]

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part, a so-called multi-year plan as peddled by Llabarse and Co. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect relating to above paragraph being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

 

We're nowhere near Man Utd as a club ffs!!! For one, Glazier came in, and kept the same footballing set-up! Man Utd was superbly run prior to the takeover!! They didn't have a managerial merry-go-round, they didn't have an ageing over paid squad! they didn't have a useless and dysfunctional academy and youth set-up! You cannot even begin to compare us with Man Utd!!! We had already fallen way way way behind them in terms of footballing institutions years ago. If we had won that title in '95, we may have had a chance. That chance was blown by Graham f***ing Fenton.

 

I never suggested we were on the same level pegging, hence the phrase 'on a different scale'. That was obviously lost upon you at the time.

 

The phrase mentioned applies both to overall market strength - both home & abroad - and the sort of spending undertaken by the Glaziers to maintain their status on this football business front ie. result-driven market appeal.

 

As for the points placed in bold. All overseen by just one bloke, the most important man at the club - the manager. The very essence and the core of their respective and successful set-ups, all undermined by Ashley's whoosh woo woo Continental system. A system whom the likes of Wenger and i dare say it Ferguson wouldn't work within either.

 

Will you go on record to suggest the next listed signings - Gavilan, Bramble, Viana, Bernard, Ambrose, N'Zogbia under Robson, Dyer & Domi under Gullit.... project type/youth players - were not overseen by the managers in question and that we didn't have a similar set-up in place. Admittedly we didn't have the same far-reaching scouting network in place. But nonetheless the manager oversaw which youngsters were brought inot the fold.

 

I've repeatedly stated from the outset that i never expected a 100m spending spree over a couple of Summers in the wake Ashley's take-over, nor did i expect the club do come in with the sort of money thrown for the youngsters earmarked as the tools of requirement in order to replicate to Arsenal youth-driven model. I've previously cited the desultory pittance we offered for Delph as the obvious example - ie. of us not spending the required amount needed to poach the higher echelons of the youth talent pool - in the Summer transfer window non-event, a window where the top brass put the manager's most valued players on sale behind his back.

 

Before comparisons are made to the expenditure layed out for Rose, and what Leeds accepted. With regards to Delph, at a similar age to Rose when the latter moved to Spurs, he is more a player who fits into the mould of somebody who is more likely to make an immediate impact and that's purely down to physical attributes when compared to the impish Rose. By comparison Rose waas a riskier prospect, a longer-term reach hence a Leeds - a club noted for their academy/talent production line - for any club willing to gamble on the scope of improvement ie. to make an impact at EPL level. And in Rose's case there was a contractual issue at hand, which featured heavily in the tiny amount Spurs payed for him. This contractual issue, with regards to him quitting Leeds' academy, has already been posted elsewhere.

 

This is a shocking indictment levied upon the Ashley regime, in the wake of their much mooted Arsenal model talk.

 

I suppose the likes of Nile Ranger, by sheer fluke, will consistently fall out of trees and into their lap........will they?

 

 

 

Do you hear me saying, "bloody hell that Mike Ashley sure is doing a fine job running NUFC?"

 

Again, the real question has been side-stepped, which is:

 

HOW DID FREDDIE SHEPHERD PLAN ON MANAGING OUR DEBT WHILE KEEPING US COMPETITIVE ON THE FOOTBALL PITCH TO ACHIEVE EVEN MORE EUROPEAN QUALIFICATION (MORE TIMES THAN ANYONE BAR 4 CLUBS etc..etc..), SEEING THAT HE FAILED MISERABLY WITH HIS APPOINTMENT OF SOUNESS?

 

HOW WOULD FREDDIE SHEPHERD HAVE HANDLED THE REIGN OF SAM ALLARDYCE, SEEING AS MOST ON HERE AGREE (not me mind) THAT HAD ALLARDYCE STAYED WE WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEGATED?

 

The point being argued here is Shepherd would have never allowed this to happen VS. Oh yes he would have as our debt was getting out of control and we still had a shit manager and god-awful playing staff

[madras]

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

man utd can carry their debt due to their turnover and profitability.

 

i refer you to quaysiders post.

 

Their strength in the Asian market was cited as the contributing factor as to why they chewed up the debt levied upon the club - via Glaziers borrowing - so quickly. It wasn't attributed to their domestic standing.

 

Do you believe a mid-table hovering Man United would achieved similar results ie. the debt aspect just mentioned & the Asian market?

 

 

"contributing factor".....so it's wasn't the only basis, it's almost as if you forget they were making sizeable profits for years before that and guess what.....that makes it easier to finance and obtain credit/debt.

 

and the 2nd bit is plain silly as you are answering your own question.

 

............... but you see a mid-table Man Utd outfit would no longer have the benefit of flogging off 'Beckham no.7' in Asia.

 

Funny that. A while ago some here - a while ago - cited that as one reason as to why should've made a move for the same player, to make minor dent into the same market.

 

 

whats that got to do with me ?

 

all you are saying is that if man utd were mid table they wouldn't be able to spend as they do......................well dahhhhhhh!

[UV]

Our finances were much, much worse under FFS than they are atm under Ashley.

 

It was a matter of 'when' not 'if' as to NUFC going bust.

 

I can't remember the club being in over £250m of debt under FS like. Now it is and boy are we paying for it. The debt levels under FS were worrying but manageable all the same. Unlike Ashley who it appears doesn't recognise at all the seriousness of the situation we are in, FS did hence the appointment of Sam Allardyce, a manager capable of doing wonders on a small budget and building from the bottom up. Oh and when the club goes down.... it will make the level of debt we were in under FS seem like pennies. So much for Ashley's plan eh.

 

We are not £250 million in debt. Ashley paid about £130 million for the club and has loaned at least £120 mllion since. The amount paid for the club is not debt.

 

The question that will not go away, it has been asked on here several times but no one can answer it, is how would the previous board have financed the club if they had still been in control? The glib answer that all successful football clubs have debt does not cut it, other clubs have debt because someone is prepared to lend it, meaning that they can demonstrate to the lender that the debt is secured and has a prospect of repayment. Who would have loaned us more money in the situation we were in? It is like you have a 100% mortgage on your house, everything in your house (furniture, kitchen appliances etc) and your car are bought on HP - plus your annual income is less than than your annual costs.  Now go and find someone to lend you some money in the current climate to allow you to speculate to accumulate...

 

There are people on this board, like me, who aren't Ashley believers. In my case I think he is a chancer who made some money floating a chain of downmarket sports retail shops at a grossly inflated value. He has bought us to show off to his mates and is now way out of his depth. We all know that there are indefensible actions relating to the Ashley regime. But until someone answers the above fundamental question about the previous regime it is hard to put the current shambles into perspective.     

 

superb post quayside, gets to the heart of the matter...i'm with you on all points

 

is it possible for someone to get a clock up on the banner of the site adding up the days/hours/minutes 'til this question is answered?  it'll need to run pretty fucking high mind

 

It's a trap!

Okay, at the risk of being banned for talking on a taboo subject and upsetting some people:

 

It's a false assumption that the club would have had to pay out the same £50-£60m above it's income in the last 2 years that Ashley has loaned the club. Factors affecting the club's losses in Ashley's time:

 

1) Wages are the largest outgoing. The year prior to Ashley wages were £62.5 (71.8%). Last year they increased to £70m (70.4%), and this year according to Llambias they will be around £76m (76% of a £100k turnover). That's an increase in wages of £21m over the 2 years.

 

Remember, the wage bill Ashley inherited included "high earning wasters" such as Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, and also Solano. If their supposed wages are to believed, that's almost a third of the wage bill he inherited right there. These players are all gone yet the wage bill has still risen both in absolute terms (by over 20%) and relative to turnover (in spite of a £18m per year hike in the turnover from the TV revenues) under Ashley.

 

2) Player purchases - Ashley's decision to pay up front for players has increased the amount we have had to pay out for players in his first 2 years even though we have had a negligible net transfer budget. I did this rough calculation before we knew Coloccini actually cost £12.5m rather than £10m, but for a rough figure it will do:

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

 

So due to Ashley's pay up front policy, up to this point we have probably paid around £25m more in advance than if we had continued to pay in instalments for players. This is money that we would not have had to loan from banks, but would be effectively loaning from the selling club.

 

3) Allardyce - There's no way Shepherd would have sacked Allardyce in his first year, so the £6m(?) payout would not have been necessary, not in the first year at least. [i'm no fan of Allardyce, but I think if he hadn't been working for someone who didn't really want him there, he wouldn't have been looking over his should wondering when he was going to be sacked all the time and would perhaps have been less cautious in his approach than he was which was his ultimate downfall.]

 

4) Loan repayments - For last year the early repayment charge on the stadium debt was around the same as we would have paid in interest on the whole debt so that cancels out any benefit from Ashley's takeover. This year however, we are around £7m better off if the loans to Ashley are interest free.

 

5) Reduced match day income- you can argue some of this is down to the credit crunch or that it's due to a build up of suffering from years of having to endure only UEFA cup football, but surely Ashley and his appointments have to take some of the blame for the reduced attendances and corporate box sales this year, and the lack of any decent cup runs to bolster the income. Having said that I'm not even going to try and quantify this.

 

So, guestimates all, but that's 21 + 25 + 6 - 7 = ~£45m additional expenditure so far which is purely down to the decisions and actions of Ashley and his employees, NOT attributable to some ill defined "state of the club when he bought it", "spiralling debt", "heading into administration" argument implying the current situation was inevitable anyway.

 

 

When people talk about Ashley turning around the club's finances I just shake my head in disbelief and wonder what the hell they're basing it on. Does it simply boil down to the fact he's currently covering the debt and has a pipe dream of finding a bunch of wonderkids who are going to save us? Ignoring the abysmal staffing decisions he's made which in themselves are financially disastrous for the club, as far as I can see it he's also running the club in an increasingly worse way financially than ever before. How he has the nerve to constantly complain about the old board getting the NR sponsorship money up front and then in the next breath ask for 3 year's advance season ticket money from supporters is beyond me. Getting 5% of your future annual income up front is a terrible way to run things but trying to get 30% of your future income up front is perfectly fine?

 

If we have any financial problems it was and is due to the wages not the debt. The debt was £70m. Of that, £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. I hope no-one is going to say that was a bad idea, that we should have saved up until we could pay for it in cash, or should have paid it off as soon as possible instead of putting the money into the squad which eventually got us back into the CL. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Is that the sort of debt the 13th or so richest club in the world can't afford to have? Something which is going to cause it to go into administration within months if Mike hadn't come along to save us? I know 1 injury ravaged season where we don't qualify for Europe is enough for some to declare that the sky is falling in, but I personally doubt it was.

 

Ignoring the impending financial implications of relegation due to his negligence, can someone explain to me why they think Ashley is running the club so well financially even if we do somehow manage to stay up?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Our finances were much, much worse under FFS than they are atm under Ashley.

 

It was a matter of 'when' not 'if' as to NUFC going bust.

 

I can't remember the club being in over £250m of debt under FS like. Now it is and boy are we paying for it. The debt levels under FS were worrying but manageable all the same. Unlike Ashley who it appears doesn't recognise at all the seriousness of the situation we are in, FS did hence the appointment of Sam Allardyce, a manager capable of doing wonders on a small budget and building from the bottom up. Oh and when the club goes down.... it will make the level of debt we were in under FS seem like pennies. So much for Ashley's plan eh.

 

We are not £250 million in debt. Ashley paid about £130 million for the club and has loaned at least £120 mllion since. The amount paid for the club is not debt.

 

The question that will not go away, it has been asked on here several times but no one can answer it, is how would the previous board have financed the club if they had still been in control? The glib answer that all successful football clubs have debt does not cut it, other clubs have debt because someone is prepared to lend it, meaning that they can demonstrate to the lender that the debt is secured and has a prospect of repayment. Who would have loaned us more money in the situation we were in? It is like you have a 100% mortgage on your house, everything in your house (furniture, kitchen appliances etc) and your car are bought on HP - plus your annual income is less than than your annual costs.  Now go and find someone to lend you some money in the current climate to allow you to speculate to accumulate...

 

There are people on this board, like me, who aren't Ashley believers. In my case I think he is a chancer who made some money floating a chain of downmarket sports retail shops at a grossly inflated value. He has bought us to show off to his mates and is now way out of his depth. We all know that there are indefensible actions relating to the Ashley regime. But until someone answers the above fundamental question about the previous regime it is hard to put the current shambles into perspective.     

 

superb post quayside, gets to the heart of the matter...i'm with you on all points

 

is it possible for someone to get a clock up on the banner of the site adding up the days/hours/minutes 'til this question is answered?  it'll need to run pretty fucking high mind

 

It's a trap!

Okay, at the risk of being banned for talking on a taboo subject and upsetting some people:

 

It's a false assumption that the club would have had to pay out the same £50-£60m above it's income in the last 2 years that Ashley has loaned the club. Factors affecting the club's losses in Ashley's time:

 

1) Wages are the largest outgoing. The year prior to Ashley wages were £62.5 (71.8%). Last year they increased to £70m (70.4%), and this year according to Llambias they will be around £76m (76% of a £100k turnover). That's an increase in wages of £21m over the 2 years.

 

Remember, the wage bill Ashley inherited included "high earning wasters" such as Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, and also Solano. If their supposed wages are to believed, that's almost a third of the wage bill he inherited right there. These players are all gone yet the wage bill has still risen both in absolute terms (by over 20%) and relative to turnover (in spite of a £18m per year hike in the turnover from the TV revenues) under Ashley.

 

2) Player purchases - Ashley's decision to pay up front for players has increased the amount we have had to pay out for players in his first 2 years even though we have had a negligible net transfer budget. I did this rough calculation before we knew Coloccini actually cost £12.5m rather than £10m, but for a rough figure it will do:

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

 

So due to Ashley's pay up front policy, up to this point we have probably paid around £25m more in advance than if we had continued to pay in instalments for players. This is money that we would not have had to loan from banks, but would be effectively loaning from the selling club.

 

3) Allardyce - There's no way Shepherd would have sacked Allardyce in his first year, so the £6m(?) payout would not have been necessary, not in the first year at least. [i'm no fan of Allardyce, but I think if he hadn't been working for someone who didn't really want him there, he wouldn't have been looking over his should wondering when he was going to be sacked all the time and would perhaps have been less cautious in his approach than he was which was his ultimate downfall.]

 

4) Loan repayments - For last year the early repayment charge on the stadium debt was around the same as we would have paid in interest on the whole debt so that cancels out any benefit from Ashley's takeover. This year however, we are around £7m better off if the loans to Ashley are interest free.

 

5) Reduced match day income- you can argue some of this is down to the credit crunch or that it's due to a build up of suffering from years of having to endure only UEFA cup football, but surely Ashley and his appointments have to take some of the blame for the reduced attendances and corporate box sales this year, and the lack of any decent cup runs to bolster the income. Having said that I'm not even going to try and quantify this.

 

So, guestimates all, but that's 21 + 25 + 6 - 7 = ~£45m additional expenditure so far which is purely down to the decisions and actions of Ashley and his employees, NOT attributable to some ill defined "state of the club when he bought it", "spiralling debt", "heading into administration" argument implying the current situation was inevitable anyway.

 

 

When people talk about Ashley turning around the club's finances I just shake my head in disbelief and wonder what the hell they're basing it on. Does it simply boil down to the fact he's currently covering the debt and has a pipe dream of finding a bunch of wonderkids who are going to save us? Ignoring the abysmal staffing decisions he's made which in themselves are financially disastrous for the club, as far as I can see it he's also running the club in an increasingly worse way financially than ever before. How he has the nerve to constantly complain about the old board getting the NR sponsorship money up front and then in the next breath ask for 3 year's advance season ticket money from supporters is beyond me. Getting 5% of your future annual income up front is a terrible way to run things but trying to get 30% of your future income up front is perfectly fine?

 

If we have any financial problems it was and is due to the wages not the debt. The debt was £70m. Of that, £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. I hope no-one is going to say that was a bad idea, that we should have saved up until we could pay for it in cash, or should have paid it off as soon as possible instead of putting the money into the squad which eventually got us back into the CL. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Is that the sort of debt the 13th or so richest club in the world can't afford to have? Something which is going to cause it to go into administration within months if Mike hadn't come along to save us? I know 1 injury ravaged season where we don't qualify for Europe is enough for some to declare that the sky is falling in, but I personally doubt it was.

 

Ignoring the impending financial implications of relegation due to his negligence, can someone explain to me why they think Ashley is running the club so well financially even if we do somehow manage to stay up?

Only going to comment on the NR/Season ticket point...

 

There is a big difference in paying out your fixed sponsorship fee at the front end of the sponsorship period and trying to fix a currently variable income stream.

 

We were guaranteed £x million from Northern Rock over 4 years. This under normal cicumstances would be received in 25% lumps (or maybe a larger up front payment and 3 smaller installments).

 

We were not guaranteed that season ticket holders would renew each year, therefore by offering a slighlty reduced fee for taking a 3 year ticket you are fixing that income and removing uncertainty in your cashflow.

 

We don't know if the season ticket money will be spent in one go, it certainly won't hit the profit in one go.

[Guest fading star]

The northern rock deal was £5m over five years, and as I understand it was paid in instalments.

 

It may have passed you by, but the club have been compelled to offer supporters an opportunity to cancel the three year deal… how does that remove uncertainty?

[NE5]

Okay, I'll ask anyone else to respond if they disagree with that fairly simple statement.

 

NUFC were shit for the final few years of the Shepherd regime, and were running into serious problems with the finances.

 

Please reply if you dispute this.

 

Not as shit and as we are now and back then there wasnt the same air of doom and disillusionment hanging over the club as there is now

 

Do you think Shepherd would have chosen Wise over Keegan?

Do you think Shepherd would have gambled on our future in the premier league by making a profit in the January transfer window?

Do you think Shepherd would have done nothing and continued to place our hopes of premiership survival on a second rate manager who is recovering from a heart attack?

 

As before; I never mentioned Ashley in that statement. This isn't a comparison.

 

I replied, see my post, number 128. I see nobody, including yourself, has nothing to respond.

 

Why not ask people to post their thoughts on it ?

 

 

[johnnypd]

Our finances were much, much worse under FFS than they are atm under Ashley.

 

It was a matter of 'when' not 'if' as to NUFC going bust.

 

I can't remember the club being in over £250m of debt under FS like. Now it is and boy are we paying for it. The debt levels under FS were worrying but manageable all the same. Unlike Ashley who it appears doesn't recognise at all the seriousness of the situation we are in, FS did hence the appointment of Sam Allardyce, a manager capable of doing wonders on a small budget and building from the bottom up. Oh and when the club goes down.... it will make the level of debt we were in under FS seem like pennies. So much for Ashley's plan eh.

 

We are not £250 million in debt. Ashley paid about £130 million for the club and has loaned at least £120 mllion since. The amount paid for the club is not debt.

 

The question that will not go away, it has been asked on here several times but no one can answer it, is how would the previous board have financed the club if they had still been in control? The glib answer that all successful football clubs have debt does not cut it, other clubs have debt because someone is prepared to lend it, meaning that they can demonstrate to the lender that the debt is secured and has a prospect of repayment. Who would have loaned us more money in the situation we were in? It is like you have a 100% mortgage on your house, everything in your house (furniture, kitchen appliances etc) and your car are bought on HP - plus your annual income is less than than your annual costs.  Now go and find someone to lend you some money in the current climate to allow you to speculate to accumulate...

 

There are people on this board, like me, who aren't Ashley believers. In my case I think he is a chancer who made some money floating a chain of downmarket sports retail shops at a grossly inflated value. He has bought us to show off to his mates and is now way out of his depth. We all know that there are indefensible actions relating to the Ashley regime. But until someone answers the above fundamental question about the previous regime it is hard to put the current shambles into perspective.     

 

superb post quayside, gets to the heart of the matter...i'm with you on all points

 

is it possible for someone to get a clock up on the banner of the site adding up the days/hours/minutes 'til this question is answered?  it'll need to run pretty fucking high mind

 

It's a trap!

Okay, at the risk of being banned for talking on a taboo subject and upsetting some people:

 

It's a false assumption that the club would have had to pay out the same £50-£60m above it's income in the last 2 years that Ashley has loaned the club. Factors affecting the club's losses in Ashley's time:

 

1) Wages are the largest outgoing. The year prior to Ashley wages were £62.5 (71.8%). Last year they increased to £70m (70.4%), and this year according to Llambias they will be around £76m (76% of a £100k turnover). That's an increase in wages of £21m over the 2 years.

 

Remember, the wage bill Ashley inherited included "high earning wasters" such as Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, and also Solano. If their supposed wages are to believed, that's almost a third of the wage bill he inherited right there. These players are all gone yet the wage bill has still risen both in absolute terms (by over 20%) and relative to turnover (in spite of a £18m per year hike in the turnover from the TV revenues) under Ashley.

 

2) Player purchases - Ashley's decision to pay up front for players has increased the amount we have had to pay out for players in his first 2 years even though we have had a negligible net transfer budget. I did this rough calculation before we knew Coloccini actually cost £12.5m rather than £10m, but for a rough figure it will do:

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

 

So due to Ashley's pay up front policy, up to this point we have probably paid around £25m more in advance than if we had continued to pay in instalments for players. This is money that we would not have had to loan from banks, but would be effectively loaning from the selling club.

 

3) Allardyce - There's no way Shepherd would have sacked Allardyce in his first year, so the £6m(?) payout would not have been necessary, not in the first year at least. [i'm no fan of Allardyce, but I think if he hadn't been working for someone who didn't really want him there, he wouldn't have been looking over his should wondering when he was going to be sacked all the time and would perhaps have been less cautious in his approach than he was which was his ultimate downfall.]

 

4) Loan repayments - For last year the early repayment charge on the stadium debt was around the same as we would have paid in interest on the whole debt so that cancels out any benefit from Ashley's takeover. This year however, we are around £7m better off if the loans to Ashley are interest free.

 

5) Reduced match day income- you can argue some of this is down to the credit crunch or that it's due to a build up of suffering from years of having to endure only UEFA cup football, but surely Ashley and his appointments have to take some of the blame for the reduced attendances and corporate box sales this year, and the lack of any decent cup runs to bolster the income. Having said that I'm not even going to try and quantify this.

 

So, guestimates all, but that's 21 + 25 + 6 - 7 = ~£45m additional expenditure so far which is purely down to the decisions and actions of Ashley and his employees, NOT attributable to some ill defined "state of the club when he bought it", "spiralling debt", "heading into administration" argument implying the current situation was inevitable anyway.

 

 

When people talk about Ashley turning around the club's finances I just shake my head in disbelief and wonder what the hell they're basing it on. Does it simply boil down to the fact he's currently covering the debt and has a pipe dream of finding a bunch of wonderkids who are going to save us? Ignoring the abysmal staffing decisions he's made which in themselves are financially disastrous for the club, as far as I can see it he's also running the club in an increasingly worse way financially than ever before. How he has the nerve to constantly complain about the old board getting the NR sponsorship money up front and then in the next breath ask for 3 year's advance season ticket money from supporters is beyond me. Getting 5% of your future annual income up front is a terrible way to run things but trying to get 30% of your future income up front is perfectly fine?

 

If we have any financial problems it was and is due to the wages not the debt. The debt was £70m. Of that, £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. I hope no-one is going to say that was a bad idea, that we should have saved up until we could pay for it in cash, or should have paid it off as soon as possible instead of putting the money into the squad which eventually got us back into the CL. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Is that the sort of debt the 13th or so richest club in the world can't afford to have? Something which is going to cause it to go into administration within months if Mike hadn't come along to save us? I know 1 injury ravaged season where we don't qualify for Europe is enough for some to declare that the sky is falling in, but I personally doubt it was.

 

Ignoring the impending financial implications of relegation due to his negligence, can someone explain to me why they think Ashley is running the club so well financially even if we do somehow manage to stay up?

 

very good post. I was wondering about the transfer fees point especially, and how much of the additional debt is down to paying total fees up front while receiving them as staggered, and even deferred, payments. The January transfer window is a good example of this - we made something like a £6m profit yet Ashley has put in money to cover our signings.

[Unbelievable]

Superb post UV. In general I don't have much of a problem with some financial prudence at a time like this and I accept some form of financial contraining was probably needed, but most importantly for me the little money available is not being spent will if it means us attracting lower echelon players and having them managed by the most mediocre stand in manager you could find if you tried. Whatever money we are saving by being prudent we are losing (and more!) by the God awful decision making on the footballing side of the business.

[johnnypd]

Superb post UV. In general I don't have much of a problem with some financial prudence at a time like this and I accept some form of financial contraining was probably needed, but most importantly for me the little money available is not being spent will if it means us attracting lower echelon players and having them managed by the most mediocre stand in manager you could find if you tried. Whatever money we are saving by being prudent we are losing (and more!) by the God awful decision making on the footballing side of the business.

 

yes, ashley went about it the wrong way and went too far in his frugality. These errors have been compounded with idiotic decision-making on the footballing side. had he spent, say, £20m net in the summer and let keegan have all of it, we wouldve avoided a whole raft of crap to follow and it would've cost Ashley less in the long-run.

[quayside]

Our finances were much, much worse under FFS than they are atm under Ashley.

 

It was a matter of 'when' not 'if' as to NUFC going bust.

 

I can't remember the club being in over £250m of debt under FS like. Now it is and boy are we paying for it. The debt levels under FS were worrying but manageable all the same. Unlike Ashley who it appears doesn't recognise at all the seriousness of the situation we are in, FS did hence the appointment of Sam Allardyce, a manager capable of doing wonders on a small budget and building from the bottom up. Oh and when the club goes down.... it will make the level of debt we were in under FS seem like pennies. So much for Ashley's plan eh.

 

We are not £250 million in debt. Ashley paid about £130 million for the club and has loaned at least £120 mllion since. The amount paid for the club is not debt.

 

The question that will not go away, it has been asked on here several times but no one can answer it, is how would the previous board have financed the club if they had still been in control? The glib answer that all successful football clubs have debt does not cut it, other clubs have debt because someone is prepared to lend it, meaning that they can demonstrate to the lender that the debt is secured and has a prospect of repayment. Who would have loaned us more money in the situation we were in? It is like you have a 100% mortgage on your house, everything in your house (furniture, kitchen appliances etc) and your car are bought on HP - plus your annual income is less than than your annual costs.  Now go and find someone to lend you some money in the current climate to allow you to speculate to accumulate...

 

There are people on this board, like me, who aren't Ashley believers. In my case I think he is a chancer who made some money floating a chain of downmarket sports retail shops at a grossly inflated value. He has bought us to show off to his mates and is now way out of his depth. We all know that there are indefensible actions relating to the Ashley regime. But until someone answers the above fundamental question about the previous regime it is hard to put the current shambles into perspective.     

 

superb post quayside, gets to the heart of the matter...i'm with you on all points

 

is it possible for someone to get a clock up on the banner of the site adding up the days/hours/minutes 'til this question is answered?  it'll need to run pretty f***ing high mind

 

It's a trap!

Okay, at the risk of being banned for talking on a taboo subject and upsetting some people:

 

It's a false assumption that the club would have had to pay out the same £50-£60m above it's income in the last 2 years that Ashley has loaned the club. Factors affecting the club's losses in Ashley's time:

 

1) Wages are the largest outgoing. The year prior to Ashley wages were £62.5 (71.8%). Last year they increased to £70m (70.4%), and this year according to Llambias they will be around £76m (76% of a £100k turnover). That's an increase in wages of £21m over the 2 years.

 

Remember, the wage bill Ashley inherited included "high earning wasters" such as Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, and also Solano. If their supposed wages are to believed, that's almost a third of the wage bill he inherited right there. These players are all gone yet the wage bill has still risen both in absolute terms (by over 20%) and relative to turnover (in spite of a £18m per year hike in the turnover from the TV revenues) under Ashley.

 

2) Player purchases - Ashley's decision to pay up front for players has increased the amount we have had to pay out for players in his first 2 years even though we have had a negligible net transfer budget. I did this rough calculation before we knew Coloccini actually cost £12.5m rather than £10m, but for a rough figure it will do:

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

 

So due to Ashley's pay up front policy, up to this point we have probably paid around £25m more in advance than if we had continued to pay in instalments for players. This is money that we would not have had to loan from banks, but would be effectively loaning from the selling club.

 

3) Allardyce - There's no way Shepherd would have sacked Allardyce in his first year, so the £6m(?) payout would not have been necessary, not in the first year at least. [i'm no fan of Allardyce, but I think if he hadn't been working for someone who didn't really want him there, he wouldn't have been looking over his should wondering when he was going to be sacked all the time and would perhaps have been less cautious in his approach than he was which was his ultimate downfall.]

 

4) Loan repayments - For last year the early repayment charge on the stadium debt was around the same as we would have paid in interest on the whole debt so that cancels out any benefit from Ashley's takeover. This year however, we are around £7m better off if the loans to Ashley are interest free.

 

5) Reduced match day income- you can argue some of this is down to the credit crunch or that it's due to a build up of suffering from years of having to endure only UEFA cup football, but surely Ashley and his appointments have to take some of the blame for the reduced attendances and corporate box sales this year, and the lack of any decent cup runs to bolster the income. Having said that I'm not even going to try and quantify this.

 

So, guestimates all, but that's 21 + 25 + 6 - 7 = ~£45m additional expenditure so far which is purely down to the decisions and actions of Ashley and his employees, NOT attributable to some ill defined "state of the club when he bought it", "spiralling debt", "heading into administration" argument implying the current situation was inevitable anyway.

 

 

When people talk about Ashley turning around the club's finances I just shake my head in disbelief and wonder what the hell they're basing it on. Does it simply boil down to the fact he's currently covering the debt and has a pipe dream of finding a bunch of wonderkids who are going to save us? Ignoring the abysmal staffing decisions he's made which in themselves are financially disastrous for the club, as far as I can see it he's also running the club in an increasingly worse way financially than ever before. How he has the nerve to constantly complain about the old board getting the NR sponsorship money up front and then in the next breath ask for 3 year's advance season ticket money from supporters is beyond me. Getting 5% of your future annual income up front is a terrible way to run things but trying to get 30% of your future income up front is perfectly fine?

 

If we have any financial problems it was and is due to the wages not the debt. The debt was £70m. Of that, £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. I hope no-one is going to say that was a bad idea, that we should have saved up until we could pay for it in cash, or should have paid it off as soon as possible instead of putting the money into the squad which eventually got us back into the CL. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Is that the sort of debt the 13th or so richest club in the world can't afford to have? Something which is going to cause it to go into administration within months if Mike hadn't come along to save us? I know 1 injury ravaged season where we don't qualify for Europe is enough for some to declare that the sky is falling in, but I personally doubt it was.

 

Ignoring the impending financial implications of relegation due to his negligence, can someone explain to me why they think Ashley is running the club so well financially even if we do somehow manage to stay up?

 

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?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

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?

[Frazzle]

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.