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...
cp40 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 jeesus wept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brazilianbob Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'm no tax expert but surely MA can offset the £110m loss at NUFC against taxable income from Sports Direct? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'm no tax expert but surely MA can offset the £110m loss at NUFC against taxable income from Sports Direct? Nope, capital losses against capital gains only I believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'm no tax expert but surely MA can offset the £110m loss at NUFC against taxable income from Sports Direct? Nope, capital losses against capital gains only I believe. So he was right, he isn't a tax expert. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DavB93 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'm no tax expert but surely MA can offset the £110m loss at NUFC against taxable income from Sports Direct? Nope, capital losses against capital gains only I believe. Yeah your correct mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargey Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 480 pages! :frantic: :frantic: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Redheugh Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 ....and its coming to an end very soon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 ....and its coming to an end very soon yeah sure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 ....and its coming to an end very soon yeah sure agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED209 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Drove past shearers parents house today about 1200hrs, saw mrs shearer outshide getting into her vehicle however there was also o black range rover outside with a mispaced reg plate that said something like "?? X MD" I cant remember the first 2 characters. could this belong to some one linked to the take over? could MD stand for managing director? ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Drove past shearers parents house today about 1200hrs, saw mrs shearer outshide getting into her vehicle however there was also o black range rover outside with a mispaced reg plate that said something like "?? X MD" I cant remember the first 2 characters. could this belong to some one linked to the take over? could MD stand for managing director? ? Are you Ronan Keating Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Redheugh Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maze Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 how very disappointing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Tbh, this is actually the only deadline officially announced by the club isn't it? The rest were just media speculation i think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts