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...
Guest Redheugh 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. Chicken and Egg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Why are Barclay's unwilling to transfer the overdraft to Barry? lets say you owe me £10k, and your net worth is £50k. you then ask me to transfer that debt to someone who is only worth £20k. i wouldnt be too chuffed about it either and would want certain assurances before i accepted it. regardless of having a charge over the business, ashley will have personally guaranteed that overdraft, if he goes, they have a guarntee from a less wealthy individual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside 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. But there again if the club goes tits up where do Barclays get their money if there is no one with adequate resources to guarantee it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy 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. But there again if the club goes tits up where do Barclays get their money if there is no one with adequate resources to guarantee it? we have a winner. 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. But surely on paper he'd be worth more if he owned the club. I'd be worth more if Barclays lent me the money to buy Microsoft, can't see it though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 oh, so the deadline is extended AGAIN.. quelle f***ing surprise Alternative was he stuck to the deadline date, and said that's it, I'm staying...now where's Joe... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies 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. I've said this before, but in order to get the accounts signed, Ashley (or more specifically SJP Holdings) will have signed a guarantee that the loan will not be recalled within one year from the date the accounts were signed. By using transfer fees to pay off this loan he would be comitting fraud. Of course the terms of the loan could show that (e.g.) £20m is payable each year back to Ashley on demand. If this is the case then there would be no reason why this could not be front loaded. I haven't seen the loan agreement so don't know its specifics, but I seriously doubt that it is structured in a way which would allow it all to be called in at once unless there is a major event (like a change in ownership) 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. 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? You're right of course, we're all just guessing, however I personally don't think the club is worth £100m even with the debt written off considering we'll be running at a loss this year, and nowhere near guaranteed promotion without investment now. Sunderland sold for £16m with £35-£40m debt I believe, and this was before the credit crunch. They have a large stadium already and similar potential to us. I don't see why we would be valued at so much more. That's why I don't think there's been a stampede of interest even if he is writing off the loan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies 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. But there again if the club goes tits up where do Barclays get their money if there is no one with adequate resources to guarantee it? Government bail out probably Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside 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. But there again if the club goes tits up where do Barclays get their money if there is no one with adequate resources to guarantee it? Government bail out probably Indeed To be fair, Barclays seem to have weathered the storm a lot better than most other banks though... 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. I've said this before, but in order to get the accounts signed, Ashley (or more specifically SJP Holdings) will have signed a guarantee that the loan will not be recalled within one year from the date the accounts were signed. By using transfer fees to pay off this loan he would be comitting fraud. Of course the terms of the loan could show that (e.g.) £20m is payable each year back to Ashley on demand. If this is the case then there would be no reason why this could not be front loaded. I haven't seen the loan agreement so don't know its specifics, but I seriously doubt that it is structured in a way which would allow it all to be called in at once unless there is a major event (like a change in ownership) There's a conflict of interest, so I don't know how that works legally, but could the club via Llambias not CHOOSE to pay off the debt rather than be forced to by Ashley? When the club was a plc shares were bought back off SJH at a cost to the club. That's a similar conflict of interest, yet it wasn't illegal. People called it trousering the cash then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts