Guest Brazilianbob Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Despite all the doom and gloom regarding club finances, if I was Barry Moat the first thing I would do when I became owner would be to take out a long term £60m mortgage on the ground to fund transfers and to clear the overdraft. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Despite all the doom and gloom regarding club finances, if I was Barry Moat the first thing I would do when I became owner would be to take out a long term £60m mortgage on the ground to fund transfers and to clear the overdraft. Who will give you that mortgage at the moment, especially when the club doesn;t own the land the stadium is built on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiekev Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Despite all the doom and gloom regarding club finances, if I was Barry Moat the first thing I would do when I became owner would be to take out a long term £60m mortgage on the ground to fund transfers and to clear the overdraft. Who will give you that mortgage at the moment, especially when the club doesn;t own the land the stadium is built on. I'm sure Ashley would fund it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 We did have a high wage bill but you seriously think that merchandise, tv rights and gate reciepts didn't cover that? Don't make me laugh. If the club was that much in the s*** Ashley would be willing to sell for £1 and there wouldnt be any takers, get real, football clubs make a fortune, where we not 7th in the richest clubs list last year? Its not about covering all those costs but sustaining them. The club couldn't sustain those kind of operating costs, not when the future prospects of the club in terms of revenue was one of less income and that was before relegation... Not denying that the club was running on excessive wages, just know that Ashley will not walk away from this club having been taken for as much as people think he has been, how many players have we sold in the last 2 years compared to those we brought in? Wages now down to 48 Million apparently with last years Sky money, merchandise and gate receipts to be included, add on top of that money from player sales and do you think the deficit will be up or down? The 2009 accounts were forecast to have a reduced loss in comparison to the previous year. But a reduced loss isn't going to make anyone money. The Sky money, merchandise and gate receipts you mention will be included in the 2009 accounts, as will the £72m wage bill which wasn't reduced until recently. Also remember that wages are not the clubs only costs. The wages are now £48m (perhaps even slightly lower) but the TV money will now be £14m (parachute payment) instead of £35m. Foreign TV money will now be £0 instead of £8m (?), merchandise will be lower as well. Costs have dropped but earnings will have dropped even more. Anyway I'm breaking my promise of not getting into the financial stuff tonight so I'm going to stop now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Despite all the doom and gloom regarding club finances, if I was Barry Moat the first thing I would do when I became owner would be to take out a long term £60m mortgage on the ground to fund transfers and to clear the overdraft. Good job you're not Barry fucking Moat then, isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 In order for a deal to go through, some more players will need shifted from the books, that is what is holding up the sale of the club in my opinion, which has probably already been agreed in principle. It could be that selling Taylor, Jonas and Collocini (or two of the three) will be enough to satisfy Barclays. However Taylor doesn't appear ready and willing to leave while no-one has shown any concrete interest in our two Argies. Until one or two of those players get sold, the sale will drag on and on I feel. I doubt Shearer won't be returning as manager either as he would only return if certain players were kept and he was able to bring in some new players he had already checked out surely. By the time a sale comes round the transfer window will have slammed shut and the possibly up to 3 more of our 'stars' will have left for pastures new. Moat has already proved he has the actual funds to buy the club or rather meet Ashley's asking price as he wouldn't have gotten past due diligence which he has also obviously carried out. Seymour Pierce have also recommend Moat's bid and of course he and Ashley were sat together. What this all means for me basically is that everything is in place for a deal to be concluded, the money and the mutual agreement of SP, Moat and Ashley etc. All that remains is to satisfy Barclays who want to see the operating costs of the club brought down and of course some cash to flow through the coffers (and that means selling players) before facilitating that rather large overdraft that the club will require in order to pay the bills. I'm no ITK but I know for a fact that a few weeks back none of the players had been paid for a few weeks, hence the 6-1 defeat to Leyton Orient which was their way of saying we want fucking paid or this is what you'll get. That's horseshite of the highest order. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 In order for a deal to go through, some more players will need shifted from the books, that is what is holding up the sale of the club in my opinion, which has probably already been agreed in principle. It could be that selling Taylor, Jonas and Collocini (or two of the three) will be enough to satisfy Barclays. However Taylor doesn't appear ready and willing to leave while no-one has shown any concrete interest in our two Argies. Until one or two of those players get sold, the sale will drag on and on I feel. I doubt Shearer won't be returning as manager either as he would only return if certain players were kept and he was able to bring in some new players he had already checked out surely. By the time a sale comes round the transfer window will have slammed shut and the possibly up to 3 more of our 'stars' will have left for pastures new. Moat has already proved he has the actual funds to buy the club or rather meet Ashley's asking price as he wouldn't have gotten past due diligence which he has also obviously carried out. Seymour Pierce have also recommend Moat's bid and of course he and Ashley were sat together. What this all means for me basically is that everything is in place for a deal to be concluded, the money and the mutual agreement of SP, Moat and Ashley etc. All that remains is to satisfy Barclays who want to see the operating costs of the club brought down and of course some cash to flow through the coffers (and that means selling players) before facilitating that rather large overdraft that the club will require in order to pay the bills. I'm no ITK but I know for a fact that a few weeks back none of the players had been paid for a few weeks, hence the 6-1 defeat to Leyton Orient which was their way of saying we want fucking paid or this is what you'll get. That's horseshite of the highest order. that is shite that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'm no ITK but I know for a fact that a few weeks back none of the players had been paid for a few weeks, hence the 6-1 defeat to Leyton Orient which was their way of saying we want fucking paid or this is what you'll get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DMan Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 We did have a high wage bill but you seriously think that merchandise, tv rights and gate reciepts didn't cover that? Don't make me laugh. If the club was that much in the s*** Ashley would be willing to sell for £1 and there wouldnt be any takers, get real, football clubs make a fortune, where we not 7th in the richest clubs list last year? Its not about covering all those costs but sustaining them. The club couldn't sustain those kind of operating costs, not when the future prospects of the club in terms of revenue was one of less income and that was before relegation... Not denying that the club was running on excessive wages, just know that Ashley will not walk away from this club having been taken for as much as people think he has been, how many players have we sold in the last 2 years compared to those we brought in? Wages now down to 48 Million apparently with last years Sky money, merchandise and gate receipts to be included, add on top of that money from player sales and do you think the deficit will be up or down? The 2009 accounts were forecast to have a reduced loss in comparison to the previous year. But a reduced loss isn't going to make anyone money. The Sky money, merchandise and gate receipts you mention will be included in the 2009 accounts, as will the £72m wage bill which wasn't reduced until recently. Also remember that wages are not the clubs only costs. The wages are now £48m (perhaps even slightly lower) but the TV money will now be £14m (parachute payment) instead of £35m. Foreign TV money will now be £0 instead of £8m (?), merchandise will be lower as well. Costs have dropped but earnings will have dropped even more. Anyway I'm breaking my promise of not getting into the financial stuff tonight so I'm going to stop now. Ok not going into to financail detail then but don't you think it would be safe to assume that 2010 accounts (thus far) will show NUFC making a profit once merchandise, player sales and gate reciepts have been included? Duff = 4 Mill Beye = 2 Mill Bassong = 8 Mill Martins = 10 Mill to 12 Mill? Edgar = 1-2 Mill? Possibles: Taylor - 6-8 Mill Colo and Gutierrez = 10-12 Mill (Combined) Outgoing= -0 Mill Plus revenue with TV, Merchandise and Gate receipts? I think the one thing that grates me is that in amongst all this cost cutting, it is still jobs for the boys, Wise still getting paid apparently, Mort, Llambias, Kinnear etc. Doesn't seem to be any cost cutting applied to those people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 We did have a high wage bill but you seriously think that merchandise, tv rights and gate reciepts didn't cover that? Don't make me laugh. If the club was that much in the s*** Ashley would be willing to sell for £1 and there wouldnt be any takers, get real, football clubs make a fortune, where we not 7th in the richest clubs list last year? Its not about covering all those costs but sustaining them. The club couldn't sustain those kind of operating costs, not when the future prospects of the club in terms of revenue was one of less income and that was before relegation... Not denying that the club was running on excessive wages, just know that Ashley will not walk away from this club having been taken for as much as people think he has been, how many players have we sold in the last 2 years compared to those we brought in? Wages now down to 48 Million apparently with last years Sky money, merchandise and gate receipts to be included, add on top of that money from player sales and do you think the deficit will be up or down? The 2009 accounts were forecast to have a reduced loss in comparison to the previous year. But a reduced loss isn't going to make anyone money. The Sky money, merchandise and gate receipts you mention will be included in the 2009 accounts, as will the £72m wage bill which wasn't reduced until recently. Also remember that wages are not the clubs only costs. The wages are now £48m (perhaps even slightly lower) but the TV money will now be £14m (parachute payment) instead of £35m. Foreign TV money will now be £0 instead of £8m (?), merchandise will be lower as well. Costs have dropped but earnings will have dropped even more. Anyway I'm breaking my promise of not getting into the financial stuff tonight so I'm going to stop now. Ok not going into to financail detail then but don't you think it would be safe to assume that 2010 accounts (thus far) will show NUFC making a profit once merchandise, player sales and gate reciepts have been included? Duff = 4 Mill Beye = 2 Mill Bassong = 8 Mill Martins = 10 Mill to 12 Mill? Edgar = 1-2 Mill? Possibles: Taylor - 6-8 Mill Colo and Gutierrez = 10-12 Mill (Combined) Incoming = -0 Mill Plus revenue with TV, Merchandise and Gate receipts? I think the one thing that grates me is that in amongst all this cost cutting, it is still jobs for the boys, Wise still getting paid apparently, Mort, Llambias, Kinnear etc. Doesn't seem to be any cost cutting applied to those people. how is kinear being paid when his contract expired injune or july? and the rest are being paid as per their contracts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DMan Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 He apparently offered Kinnear a 2 year contract, and surely Ashley didn't just stop paying Kinnears contract when he was taken ill or that would be breach of contract? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 His contract ended. He never signed the 'lucrative' one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 i believe it never existed tbh, was him spouting off more shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DMan Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 His contract ended. He never signed the 'lucrative' one Just seems funny that Ashley can afford to give Kinnear a 2 year contract from a financially crippled club (according to board) but can't give Shearer a rolling short term one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 His contract ended. He never signed the 'lucrative' one Just seems funny that Ashley can afford to give Kinnear a 2 year contract from a financially crippled club (according to board) but can't give Shearer a rolling short term one? Kinnear was probably willing to work for peanuts and make no demands for control and/or transfer funds. In fact that's probably why he got the gig in the first fucking place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 It's not as simple as that though is it mate. Shearer would only take the job if players weren't sold and others were brought in. JFK (if this offer is even true) would accept any old shite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 His contract ended. He never signed the 'lucrative' one Just seems funny that Ashley can afford to give Kinnear a 2 year contract from a financially crippled club (according to board) but can't give Shearer a rolling short term one? Kinnear was probably willing to work for peanuts and make no demands for control and/or transfer funds. In fact that's probably why he got the gig in the first fucking place. Several papers reported that he was the lowest paid PL manager by some way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I don't actually believe Kinnear was ever appointed. He just rang Sky Sports, told them he was manager and Fat Ash and Disco Dekka were too busy dicking around in Dubai to notice. They return and find some greasy haired throwback doing the job gratis and let him get on with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 I don't actually believe Kinnear was ever appointed. He just rang Sky Sports, told them he was manager and Fat Ash and Disco Dekka were too busy dicking around in Dubai to notice. They return and find some greasy haired throwback doing the job gratis and let him get on with it. I could actually see this being true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiGeordie Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 In order for a deal to go through, some more players will need shifted from the books, that is what is holding up the sale of the club in my opinion, which has probably already been agreed in principle. It could be that selling Taylor, Jonas and Collocini (or two of the three) will be enough to satisfy Barclays. However Taylor doesn't appear ready and willing to leave while no-one has shown any concrete interest in our two Argies. Until one or two of those players get sold, the sale will drag on and on I feel. I doubt Shearer won't be returning as manager either as he would only return if certain players were kept and he was able to bring in some new players he had already checked out surely. By the time a sale comes round the transfer window will have slammed shut and the possibly up to 3 more of our 'stars' will have left for pastures new. Moat has already proved he has the actual funds to buy the club or rather meet Ashley's asking price as he wouldn't have gotten past due diligence which he has also obviously carried out. Seymour Pierce have also recommend Moat's bid and of course he and Ashley were sat together. What this all means for me basically is that everything is in place for a deal to be concluded, the money and the mutual agreement of SP, Moat and Ashley etc. All that remains is to satisfy Barclays who want to see the operating costs of the club brought down and of course some cash to flow through the coffers (and that means selling players) before facilitating that rather large overdraft that the club will require in order to pay the bills. I'm no ITK but I know for a fact that a few weeks back none of the players had been paid for a few weeks, hence the 6-1 defeat to Leyton Orient which was their way of saying we want f***ing paid or this is what you'll get. Welcome Sir Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 In order for a deal to go through, some more players will need shifted from the books, that is what is holding up the sale of the club in my opinion, which has probably already been agreed in principle. It could be that selling Taylor, Jonas and Collocini (or two of the three) will be enough to satisfy Barclays. However Taylor doesn't appear ready and willing to leave while no-one has shown any concrete interest in our two Argies. Until one or two of those players get sold, the sale will drag on and on I feel. I doubt Shearer won't be returning as manager either as he would only return if certain players were kept and he was able to bring in some new players he had already checked out surely. By the time a sale comes round the transfer window will have slammed shut and the possibly up to 3 more of our 'stars' will have left for pastures new. Moat has already proved he has the actual funds to buy the club or rather meet Ashley's asking price as he wouldn't have gotten past due diligence which he has also obviously carried out. Seymour Pierce have also recommend Moat's bid and of course he and Ashley were sat together. What this all means for me basically is that everything is in place for a deal to be concluded, the money and the mutual agreement of SP, Moat and Ashley etc. All that remains is to satisfy Barclays who want to see the operating costs of the club brought down and of course some cash to flow through the coffers (and that means selling players) before facilitating that rather large overdraft that the club will require in order to pay the bills. I'm no ITK but I know for a fact that a few weeks back none of the players had been paid for a few weeks, hence the 6-1 defeat to Leyton Orient which was their way of saying we want f***ing paid or this is what you'll get. Welcome Sir Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Say we get rid of Jonas, Taylor and Coloccini, would Shearer still be willing to come under Moat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Say we get rid of Jonas, Taylor and Coloccini, would Shearer still be willing to come under Moat? If all three went, I doubt it. If Taylor stayed but the other two went, I reckon he'd still be willing to come in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 If we lose Jonas and one of Taylor and Coloccini, i'd be prepared to write off any chance of promotion. I don't think Shearer would feel too different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Say we get rid of Jonas, Taylor and Coloccini, would Shearer still be willing to come under Moat? I think so, yeah. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts