relámpago blanco Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). No he can't it's illegal if he was a sole trader yes but he's not, its a limited company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). How. Many. Times?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 not really sure how to interpret this news - it could have went better, it could have went worse. at least ashley looks desperate to sell and if the deadline is extended by 7 days, it doesnt mean it'll take precisely 7 days to complete. it still gives at least 1 day to panic buy a money signing, before getting lovenkrands/campbell etc (although i think campbell will be gone by next week). but im just sick of the waiting tbh. we all are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nwgeordie Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Does anyone know who Moat's US backers are, and the level of their wealth? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Does anyone know who Moat's US backers are, and the level of their wealth? Bill Gates sand the bloke who owns apple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Does anyone know who Moat's US backers are, and the level of their wealth? It's Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mani Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. how the fuck does he make a living out of this club then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. how the f*** does he make a living out of this club then? he doesnt he makes his living out of flogging crap shirts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. how the f*** does he make a living out of this club then? He doesn't - its cost him a fortune just to keep the club from going under. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. how the f*** does he make a living out of this club then? He doesn't. He makes a living from buying shares and selling them at a profit. He makes nothing from NUFC, in fact he's lost something like 1.5Bn sincebuying us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. how the f*** does he make a living out of this club then? Just thinking, does anyone think this is the general consensus amongst most fans? Surely they dont think he makes money when we sell players etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mani Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 fucking useless fat fucker! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I dont think Barclays will be too happy about this public announcement It was common knowledge tbf, but yeah this certainly increases the pressure on them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I dont think Barclays will be too happy about this public announcement It was common knowledge tbf, but yeah this certainly increases the pressure on them. We should start a petition stating if they don't give them the overdraft we'll all pull out of barclays whoever banks with them anyway, if they approve it well all join barclays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'm not surprised this has happened. Points to another delaying tactic for Ashley. Deadline day will come and go, he'll then take us off the market and say that because of the potential takeover, we weren't able to buy any players. Also expect some more players to leave in the next few days. I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Ashley is taking the piss out of all of us - make no mistake. Because, as already stated many times, the money from sales goes back into the club, it doesn't just dissapear, so the clubs value is not affected. Personally it seems that most, if not all the sales made have been unavoidable anyway due to the players themselves demanding the moves (even Duff in the end once the offer came in, which was a good deal for me). Ultimately, barring further losses, particularly the likes of Saylor or Enrique, the core of the team that remains is pretty damn good for the Championship and far better than I expected us to hold onto (with the added benifit of a surprising togetherness shown by the lads). This announcement is only not positive from the point of view that is shows that Moat is struggling to get his finances in order. As the club has stated from the start, as soon as anyone manages to get the money together and can satisfy the banks, Ashley is gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. how the f*** does he make a living out of this club then? Just thinking, does anyone think this is the general consensus amongst most fans? Surely they dont think he makes money when we sell players etc. There are definitely a decent number of fans who think Ashley personally pockets club income - season ticket sales, match day revenues, transfer fees etc. Its understandable to some extent because any trust between Ashley and the fans was blown to pieces ages ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 So even if Moat gets the backing from Barclay's, there is still no guarantee that he will takeover, just that he will be in a position to make a bid? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'm going into barclays to pay a cheque in later il try and get some answers, if they don't give me any il close my account. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 100m loan will be written off. Its the 40m to Barclays thats the issue Where did you get this from? There's no way the club's worth anything like £200m+. Writing off that loan has to be part of any realistic deal surely. The key word there is realistic. I don't any more than anyone else on here but I could well believe that Ashley's insistence on recovering his loan is a key reason for there being no takers so far. I've seen nothing from any reliable source that indicates the loan is being written off. When you buy a business you inherit its assets and liabilities and the loan is simply a liability of the company. It is indeed, I put it in specifically. If Ashley is attempting to the sell the club for £100m plus £110m debt to Ashley plus any overdraft, then any and all bids have almost certainly been pure fabrications. If he is trying to sell the club for that, then he isn't seriously trying to sell it at all. (I don't believe this is the case.) The only realistic way he could sell the club for anything like £100m is if he wrote off the debt. If this is the case and if the money from player sales is going towards reducing that debt, then should a sale go through he is effectively "trousering the cash" as it is reducing his losses and is money the club will never see again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 So even if Moat gets the backing from Barclay's, there is still no guarantee that he will takeover, just that he will be in a position to make a bid? A 'formal bid', slightly different. Personally I reckon it's mostly agreed in principle, though that's not based on much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I also wager than Ashley will be trousering all of the cash that is coming into the club via transfers. The lads at .com make an excellent point in that when assets have been sold and the wage bill dropping, then why hasn't the value of the club dropped (and the overdraft too) as well? Doesn't that amount to embezzlement, ie illegal? no, he owns the club outright, he can take as much out as he likes, even if it's a detrimental to his buisiness (club). He isn't an employee and doesn't pay himself a salary so the only way to get money out of the business is by paying a dividend. Since the club is technically insolvent it is illegal to pay dividends so any suggestion that Ashley is trousering transfer money is bollox. how the f*** does he make a living out of this club then? Just thinking, does anyone think this is the general consensus amongst most fans? Surely they dont think he makes money when we sell players etc. There are definitely a decent number of fans who think Ashley personally pockets club income - season ticket sales, match day revenues, transfer fees etc. Its understandable to some extent because any trust between Ashley and the fans was blown to pieces ages ago. And we wonder why people class us as a bunch of dribbling neanderthals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 So even if Moat gets the backing from Barclay's, there is still no guarantee that he will takeover, just that he will be in a position to make a bid? the statement says "formal" offer. I think all the arguing over price is done. Until he gets the goahead from barclays he can't make a formal bid. I think the price is all sorted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 100m loan will be written off. Its the 40m to Barclays thats the issue Where did you get this from? There's no way the club's worth anything like £200m+. Writing off that loan has to be part of any realistic deal surely. The key word there is realistic. I don't any more than anyone else on here but I could well believe that Ashley's insistence on recovering his loan is a key reason for there being no takers so far. I've seen nothing from any reliable source that indicates the loan is being written off. When you buy a business you inherit its assets and liabilities and the loan is simply a liability of the company. It is indeed, I put it in specifically. If Ashley is attempting to the sell the club for £100m plus £110m debt to Ashley plus any overdraft, then any and all bids have almost certainly been pure fabrications. If he is trying to sell the club for that, then he isn't seriously trying to sell it at all. (I don't believe this is the case.) The only realistic way he could sell the club for anything like £100m is if he wrote off the debt. If this is the case and if the money from player sales is going towards reducing that debt, then should a sale go through he is effectively "trousering the cash" as it is reducing his losses and is money the club will never see again. How does he get that cash out of the club though? People on here who are significantly more clued up on finances than I keep saying it would be illegal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'd love to know where the proof is for the money from transfers going back into the club. If that were the case (and I'm no financial expert) then surely the overdraft that the club has with Barclays would become lower, or am I missing the point? Ashley has managed to bank £20million-ish from player sales this summer as well as the wage budget going down. So where is the money going? Answers on a postcard please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts