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? 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 So basically it's all down to Barclay's, and there is no time frame? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave 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. Most of the time transfer fees are spread across the life of the contract, so in that case we'd not see that full £20m right here and now. We'd still need the overdraft to keep the club ticking over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco 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. Well its not going into Ashleys pocket as like everyones said, its illegal and since the books have been made public to those whoa re after the club then it would have shown up. Transfers nowadays very rarely are paid in one fee, its probably that we are paid monthly installments and as yet have not received much or any of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon 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. Most transfer fees are spread over a few years. We're still paying for transfers, and the savings from the wage budget are set against the reduced income for the coming year 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. 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. There's nothing illegal about paying off a debt. The debt is to Ashley. The money would go into Ashley's bank account. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco 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. There's nothing illegal about paying off a debt. The debt is to Ashley. The money would go into Ashley's bank account. Yeah but its unlikely we've received much as the transfer will be over a few years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritchie Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 What a fucking joke that announcement was. Cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 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. The legal entity SJHL receives the money (not Ashley) and this has legal liabilities to creditors and legal obligations under company ownership rules. The status of the company as 'limited' dictates which rules apply to the legal entity. Any breach of these rules could see Ashley banned from being a company director or imprisoned. If you study finance, economics or business you would learn about this stuff in the basic courses. That all said, there is legroom for Ashley to be 'creative' with his accounting and move capital around to his advantage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky 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. The legal entity SJHL receives the money (not Ashley) and this has legal liabilities to creditors and legal obligations under company ownership rules. The status of the company as 'limited' dictates which rules apply to the legal entity. Any breach of these rules could see Ashley banned from being a company director or imprisoned. If you study finance, economics or business you would learn about this stuff in the basic courses. That all said, there is legroom for Ashley to be 'creative' with his accounting and move capital around to his advantage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 What a fucking joke that announcement was. Cunts. Why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon 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. There's nothing illegal about paying off a debt. The debt is to Ashley. The money would go into Ashley's bank account. This would still have to be reflected in the club's accounts though I guess. Although it's never been mentioned anywhere it would be completely unrealistic for Ashley to expect anyone to pay him £100M, then owe him a further £100M. I do remember reading that although we have allowed clubs to pay transfer fees on the drip, that Ashley has paid upfront for players we have purchased. I guess that could mean any incoming fees are being used to pay off the loan he gave us. Even with that in mind though, he won't recoup that much as surely any fees now due would be owed to the new owners. Maybe he's managed to bank the Milner money though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside 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. We all talking blind here because we don't know what it is costing to run the club now. The wage bill has gone down but so has the income so the club will, in all probability, still be running at a loss. Someone or something would have to fund that loss. And it isn't Barclays. So the player sales would have to provide funding. Seeing as the player sales probably don't provide immediate cash I would guess that things are still extremely tight at the club. As for Ashley's loan and writing it off in full, in part or deferring repayment I just don't know what the deal on the table is. I agree that if he wants full and quick repayment it is likely to be a deal blocker. But then again there doesn't appear to have been a rush to snap up the club at terms suitable to Ashley, what are those terms? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I woke up this morning all excited about the annoucement this morning, and this is what we get ?? FFS, just more delaying tactics, do they not recognise the fact that the transfer window is a week away from closing now ? Someone has to take some responsibility here, either Moat get his bloody act together and sort out the finances or Ashley tell him to screw it and look to adress the recruitment of a Manager and players. This is fucking ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/2263/89426193.jpg Quoted so I don't have to type shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 oh, so the deadline is extended AGAIN.. quelle fucking surprise 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. 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. There's nothing illegal about paying off a debt. The debt is to Ashley. The money would go into Ashley's bank account. Yeah but its unlikely we've received much as the transfer will be over a few years. You're only guessing that though. Ashley may have insisted on getting all or most of the money up front. I'd be surprised if we haven't received at least £10-15m cash from sales so far this Summer, plus there are the instalments from Milner, Given, N'Zogbia, the season ticket income, new away kits, etc. All things considered, the club should really have no overdraft and money in the bank at this point in the season, but noone really knows for sure, it MAY have gone into paying off the debt to Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly 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. There's nothing illegal about paying off a debt. The debt is to Ashley. The money would go into Ashley's bank account. Yeah but its unlikely we've received much as the transfer will be over a few years. You're only guessing that though. Ashley may have insisted on getting all or most of the money up front. I'd be surprised if we haven't received at least £10-15m cash from sales so far this Summer, plus there are the instalments from Milner, Given, N'Zogbia, the season ticket income, new away kits, etc. All things considered, the club should really have no overdraft and money in the bank at this point in the season, but noone really knows for sure, it MAY have gone into paying off the debt to Ashley. it might not be an overdraft but rather the overdraft facility which is available to the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Redheugh Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Money is paid in over the players new contract. i.e. Milner money probably has 2 more payments. They have probably asked for second parachute payment upfront too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Why are Barclay's unwilling to transfer the overdraft to Barry? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Redheugh Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Why are Barclay's unwilling to transfer the overdraft to Barry? Secured on what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Why are Barclay's unwilling to transfer the overdraft to Barry? Because he's worth less than the overdraft is for would be my thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Why are Barclay's unwilling to transfer the overdraft to Barry? Missed a payment on his TopMan card, claims he was on holiday Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 It's not wholly related, but when the paddies bought Sunderland, did they inherit the debt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Why are Barclay's unwilling to transfer the overdraft to Barry? they might want to reduce the amount available on overdraft Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Why are Barclay's unwilling to transfer the overdraft to Barry? Because he's worth less than the overdraft is for would be my thinking. But surely on paper he'd be worth more if he owned the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts