Guest Wally_McFool Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I wouldn't have thought they'd be obliged to assist us any more than they would another medium size outfit? May be wrong though? Do they not realise who we are..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not exactly ideal timing to be relying on a bank. Especially if it means them taking any element of risk. Havent you seen Barclays recent profits? I have but they're not likely to be keen to attract negative PR from taking chances tis all I'm saying. Is it positive PR to refuse to assist such a high-profile organisation though? I would've thought they'd be applauded for being risk averse given the current climate. Let's face it, they're not likely to get any stick for not 'taking a chance' on us if that's what they're required to do in this Moat deal. I wouldn't have thought they'd be obliged to assist us any more than they would another medium size outfit? May be wrong though? I'd imagine the opposite tbh, do things like this not need to happen to stimulate the economy again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 what could be defining as well is barry moat's business plan on how he would make the club work as a business and what he would do to make it profitable in the short and long term Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not exactly ideal timing to be relying on a bank. Especially if it means them taking any element of risk. Havent you seen Barclays recent profits? I have but they're not likely to be keen to attract negative PR from taking chances tis all I'm saying. Is it positive PR to refuse to assist such a high-profile organisation though? I would've thought they'd be applauded for being risk averse given the current climate. Let's face it, they're not likely to get any stick for not 'taking a chance' on us if that's what they're required to do in this Moat deal. I wouldn't have thought they'd be obliged to assist us any more than they would another medium size outfit? May be wrong though? I'd imagine the opposite tbh, do things like this not need to happen to stimulate the economy again? Hmm maybe you're right but I don't think they'll be taking any chances, a high profile 'Leeds style' fuck up is obviously going to generate reams of negative press and they're not going to be want to be associated with that. It's not like they need the money, so they don't have to take a chance on a football club. Hope I am wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not exactly ideal timing to be relying on a bank. Especially if it means them taking any element of risk. Havent you seen Barclays recent profits? I have but they're not likely to be keen to attract negative PR from taking chances tis all I'm saying. Is it positive PR to refuse to assist such a high-profile organisation though? I would've thought they'd be applauded for being risk averse given the current climate. Let's face it, they're not likely to get any stick for not 'taking a chance' on us if that's what they're required to do in this Moat deal. I wouldn't have thought they'd be obliged to assist us any more than they would another medium size outfit? May be wrong though? I'd imagine the opposite tbh, do things like this not need to happen to stimulate the economy again? Hmm maybe you're right but I don't think they'll be taking any chances, a high profile 'Leeds style' fuck up is obviously going to generate reams of negative press and they're not going to be want to be associated with that. It's not like they need the money, so they don't have to take a chance on a football club. Hope I am wrong. Well like I said previously though I've no idea whether or not this is the case, I doubt this decision is based around 'taking a chance' - it's more likely just a case of them giving their blessing to a change of hands on a facility they already offer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. that is the stumbling block as i understand it. the bank want the overdraft reduced as ashley wont be the guarantor. the deal between ashley and moat is done. the bank is the block. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. What makes you say that? Nothing you state there is different to what everyone realises. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. that is the stumbling block as i understand it. the bank want the overdraft reduced as ashley wont be the guarantor. the deal between ashley and moat is done. the bank is the block. Will the sales of Martins/Bassong/Beye/Duff not help on that front? As well as the wages situation of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. What makes you say that? Nothing you state there is different to what everyone realises. More as to what some think the bank should do and why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. What makes you say that? Nothing you state there is different to what everyone realises. More as to what some think the bank should do and why. Ah right, you mean the likes of James. Fair comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. that is the stumbling block as i understand it. the bank want the overdraft reduced as ashley wont be the guarantor. the deal between ashley and moat is done. the bank is the block. Will the sales of Martins/Bassong/Beye/Duff not help on that front? As well as the wages situation of course. don't know. may well depend on what the clubs current finances and projections are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. that is the stumbling block as i understand it. the bank want the overdraft reduced as ashley wont be the guarantor. the deal between ashley and moat is done. the bank is the block. Yep, I think that is the case - the question is what does Moat need from Barlays to support his business plan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. What makes you say that? Nothing you state there is different to what everyone realises. More as to what some think the bank should do and why. Ah right, you mean the likes of James. Fair comment. My fault, I just realised my opening sentence was too wide and sweeping! Apologies! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. that is the stumbling block as i understand it. the bank want the overdraft reduced as ashley wont be the guarantor. the deal between ashley and moat is done. the bank is the block. Will the sales of Martins/Bassong/Beye/Duff not help on that front? As well as the wages situation of course. don't know. may well depend on what the clubs current finances and projections are. Agreed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. A favour? Don't be stupid, its an investment. No different to giving me or you an overdraft (it won't be interest free). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think a lot of people live in cloud cuckoo land. The bank is funding an ever increasing overdraft at the moment - they have been doing us a favour for a long time. Moat hasn't got a lot of cash - he needs Barclays but they will be looking to reduce that overdraft significantly as part of any deal - they are a business and NUFC is a high risk exposure. A favour? Don't be f***ing stupid, its an investment. No different to giving me or you an overdraft. I wasn't being literal, of course its an investment - I meant that they have helped finance and support the club - which by the way no other bank would touch with a barge pole at present. And it is a bit different to giving you a f*cking overdraft given the context of PR and local marketplace - do you think you getting an overdraft would have to be approved by the Head of Corporate in Newcastle, the capital allocation committe and head of finance credit committe in London - its that sensitive an investment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I was talking about the motivation for it being no different, obviously the scale of the overdraft is different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I was talking about the motivation for it being no different, obviously the scale of the overdraft is different. Wrong - the motivation is different - lending to a football club has massive PR and reputational risks attached as well as the obvious risk assessment from ability to fund and repay the debt. That has an impact on the appetite in the first place but additionally has an impact on the bank staying in when perhaps they might normally have pulled out - do Barclays want to be the local bank that put the club under? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 they should just point to that rich clubs list we're always on and say "we'll be back there soon, then you get your money back - gizza loan!" ......regardless, the next 2 days are unbelievably important to this club, its all or nothing. come on barclays! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pedro_de_geordieo Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Chronicle have again nothing to report! Meanwhile, United were tight-lipped on the ongoing takeover saga at Gallowgate today and the significance of Barry Moat’s decision to sit next to Ashley. Moat has been tipped with a takeover bid at St James’s but has so far failed to come up with sufficient funds. A club spokesman said today: “There is nothing to say on that matter unfortunately.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Our revenue this year is going to be bouyed massively by sales and our costs are going to be drastically cut. We'll be fine imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I was talking about the motivation for it being no different, obviously the scale of the overdraft is different. Wrong - the motivation is different - lending to a football club has massive PR and reputational risks attached as well as the obvious risk assessment from ability to fund and repay the debt. That has an impact on the appetite in the first place but additionally has an impact on the bank staying in when perhaps they might normally have pulled out - do Barclays want to be the local bank that put the club under? The motivation is profit. If Barclays think they'll lose massive sums of money they'll pull out no matter what. If they even considered staying in due to not wanting to send the club down it would purely be for fear of losing money from customers. Fair enough that eliment doesn't come into it if I got a loan there, but lets not make this into some convoluted discussion. My point was simple, Barclays are motivated here by profit, they aren't doing us a favour. You've already agreed with that earlier so I'm not sure why we're still discussing this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I was talking about the motivation for it being no different, obviously the scale of the overdraft is different. Wrong - the motivation is different - lending to a football club has massive PR and reputational risks attached as well as the obvious risk assessment from ability to fund and repay the debt. That has an impact on the appetite in the first place but additionally has an impact on the bank staying in when perhaps they might normally have pulled out - do Barclays want to be the local bank that put the club under? I'm not wrong, the motivation is profit. If Barclays think they'll lose their money they'll pull out wether it sends the club under or not. It amazes me how these discussions can go on so long based on a simple comment.. Barclays are lending us money as an investment, not a favour, you've already agreed with that earlier so why are we still having this discussion? Fine - you are wrong about Barclays motivation - well not wrong but inherently nieve as to how banks operate with existing exposures but agree we shouldn't continue to have this discussion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Fucking hell, I'm going out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts