oldtype Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Wish we could just lock this and forbid any mention of the word "takeover" anywhere on this forum. Here's my bit of ITK information: We're never going to be taken over. Ever. Ashley will be here until he dies of old age, after which he'll rise again as an undead lord and rule over us until the sun burns out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mofo Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Wish we could just lock this and forbid any mention of the word "takeover" anywhere on this forum. Here's my bit of ITK information: We're never going to be taken over. Ever. Ashley will be here until he dies of old age, after which he'll rise again as an undead lord and rule over us until the sun burns out. Source?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Wish we could just lock this and forbid any mention of the word "takeover" anywhere on this forum. Here's my bit of ITK information: We're never going to be taken over. Ever. Ashley will be here until he dies of old age, after which he'll rise again as an undead lord and rule over us until the sun burns out. Source?? I can't reveal it, let's just say i have friends in really high places. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I think a major difficulty is it's hard to put a value on our club at the moment. If we'd reached rock bottom and the only way was up, or if we were in a healthy, stable position in the Premiership, it'd be easier to set a price. As it is, no-one can be sure if there's not further decline ahead which will prove a financial drain on a new owner. Particularly in the current financial climate, caution is the byword. Obviously if we do get promoted, £100 million will be a ridiculous bargain for a debt-free Premiership club with the third largest ground in the country. If we get promoted £100m price tags will be a distant memory On what basis though? What is a football club worth? As a business it's worth nothing if it doesn't make any money and very few clubs can do that on a sustainable basis. All we're banking on is the club becoming attractive enough to become a rich man's plaything and him having more money than sense. You are joking right? If we got promoted income would almost double for a start, Ashley would point to lower costs with wages etc and the club has a reasonable base to start again. If you put your house up for £100k and the property market boomed by 30% would you ignore it and let someone else get the benefit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 You are joking right? If we got promoted income would almost double for a start, Ashley would point to lower costs with wages etc and the club has a reasonable base to start again. If you put your house up for £100k and the property market boomed by 30% would you ignore it and let someone else get the benefit? If your house was worth £50k and you wanted £100k, then the market went up 30%, it would still be overpriced. I'm failing to see the justification for the price- so what if revenue doubles? The club has had huge inflows for years, and managed to spend even more. If we went up, we'd need investment to survive. If you want to be getting decent results and not just scraping then this will require further investment. There's your base. How would an investor get his money back? Where is the decent return on what would likely be £150m+ to buy a stable Premiership club? We make a loss and have done for years. A lot of this is down to mismanagement, but a lot is simply down to the fact that football is a rotten investment. To sustainably generate £10-15m of profit to justify that sort of investment seems very ambitious. Would fans be happy if transfers were modest while the shareholders took out that sort of cash on an annual basis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 You are joking right? If we got promoted income would almost double for a start, Ashley would point to lower costs with wages etc and the club has a reasonable base to start again. If you put your house up for £100k and the property market boomed by 30% would you ignore it and let someone else get the benefit? If your house was worth £50k and you wanted £100k, then the market went up 30%, it would still be overpriced. I'm failing to see the justification for the price- so what if revenue doubles? The club has had huge inflows for years, and managed to spend even more. If we went up, we'd need investment to survive. If you want to be getting decent results and not just scraping then this will require further investment. There's your base. How would an investor get his money back? Where is the decent return on what would likely be £150m+ to buy a stable Premiership club? We make a loss and have done for years. A lot of this is down to mismanagement, but a lot is simply down to the fact that football is a rotten investment. To sustainably generate £10-15m of profit to justify that sort of investment seems very ambitious. Would fans be happy if transfers were modest while the shareholders took out that sort of cash on an annual basis? Justification for the price? You think the stadium is worthless? Training ground/academy worthless? How many people have paid for players that we havent seen money for yet? What about goodwill, sure the club isnt looking too rosey financially but its repairable for anyone with real business acumen. Liverpool was bought for about £400m and they still need a further £400m for a ground, hence they are going to be in debt for decades. £100m for a club which in all honesty is only a bit of depth away from walking this league isnt too far a stretch given the obvious advantages should you regain promotion. The club debts are by and large a result of gross mismanagement and downright stupidity, any new buyer who sees this and makes the right decisions and appointments can change all that. We all hate Ashley here but if he sold for £50m can you justifiably say thats a fair price when promotion and limited spending would claw that fee back in 18 months even in a eventual relegation. We could well have ended up with another schmuck on for a quick profit at that price... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED209 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 You are joking right? If we got promoted income would almost double for a start, Ashley would point to lower costs with wages etc and the club has a reasonable base to start again. If you put your house up for £100k and the property market boomed by 30% would you ignore it and let someone else get the benefit? If your house was worth £50k and you wanted £100k, then the market went up 30%, it would still be overpriced. I'm failing to see the justification for the price- so what if revenue doubles? The club has had huge inflows for years, and managed to spend even more. If we went up, we'd need investment to survive. If you want to be getting decent results and not just scraping then this will require further investment. There's your base. How would an investor get his money back? Where is the decent return on what would likely be £150m+ to buy a stable Premiership club? We make a loss and have done for years. A lot of this is down to mismanagement, but a lot is simply down to the fact that football is a rotten investment. To sustainably generate £10-15m of profit to justify that sort of investment seems very ambitious. Would fans be happy if transfers were modest while the shareholders took out that sort of cash on an annual basis? Justification for the price? You think the stadium is worthless? Training ground/academy worthless? How many people have paid for players that we havent seen money for yet? What about goodwill, sure the club isnt looking too rosey financially but its repairable for anyone with real business acumen. Liverpool was bought for about £400m and they still need a further £400m for a ground, hence they are going to be in debt for decades. £100m for a club which in all honesty is only a bit of depth away from walking this league isnt too far a stretch given the obvious advantages should you regain promotion. The club debts are by and large a result of gross mismanagement and downright stupidity, any new buyer who sees this and makes the right decisions and appointments can change all that. We all hate Ashley here but if he sold for £50m can you justifiably say thats a fair price when promotion and limited spending would claw that fee back in 18 months even in a eventual relegation. We could well have ended up with another schmuck on for a quick profit at that price... newcastle do not own their stadium, so to the club it is worthless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Dont own the land, the building on top we do. Unless the stadium fairies presented us with a 52k ground for free? Wouldnt have had £68m mortgage otherwise would we? Your point makes no sense, as the stadium is anything but worthless Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 You are joking right? If we got promoted income would almost double for a start, Ashley would point to lower costs with wages etc and the club has a reasonable base to start again. If you put your house up for £100k and the property market boomed by 30% would you ignore it and let someone else get the benefit? If your house was worth £50k and you wanted £100k, then the market went up 30%, it would still be overpriced. I'm failing to see the justification for the price- so what if revenue doubles? The club has had huge inflows for years, and managed to spend even more. If we went up, we'd need investment to survive. If you want to be getting decent results and not just scraping then this will require further investment. There's your base. How would an investor get his money back? Where is the decent return on what would likely be £150m+ to buy a stable Premiership club? We make a loss and have done for years. A lot of this is down to mismanagement, but a lot is simply down to the fact that football is a rotten investment. To sustainably generate £10-15m of profit to justify that sort of investment seems very ambitious. Would fans be happy if transfers were modest while the shareholders took out that sort of cash on an annual basis? Justification for the price? You think the stadium is worthless? Training ground/academy worthless? How many people have paid for players that we havent seen money for yet? What about goodwill, sure the club isnt looking too rosey financially but its repairable for anyone with real business acumen. Liverpool was bought for about £400m and they still need a further £400m for a ground, hence they are going to be in debt for decades. £100m for a club which in all honesty is only a bit of depth away from walking this league isnt too far a stretch given the obvious advantages should you regain promotion. The club debts are by and large a result of gross mismanagement and downright stupidity, any new buyer who sees this and makes the right decisions and appointments can change all that. We all hate Ashley here but if he sold for £50m can you justifiably say thats a fair price when promotion and limited spending would claw that fee back in 18 months even in a eventual relegation. We could well have ended up with another schmuck on for a quick profit at that price... newcastle do not own their stadium, so to the club it is worthless. We're paying for the stadium development at the moment, so we must own something. Its the land on which it is built that we dont own i believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 The point isn't really whether we own it or not. Rather that we don't need to spoend hundreds of millions of pounds on a new one like some clubs do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filflop1 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 The council own the land Newcastle own the stadium Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 The point isn't really whether we own it or not. Rather that we don't need to spoend hundreds of millions of pounds on a new one like some clubs do. Exactly, money generated in the ground is the clubs, nobody elses therefore its worth to us is huge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Justification for the price? You think the stadium is worthless? Training ground/academy worthless? How many people have paid for players that we havent seen money for yet? What about goodwill, sure the club isnt looking too rosey financially but its repairable for anyone with real business acumen. Good point- what about goodwill? Why would any purchaser consider an asset that is merely an accounting filler to reflect a purchase price over the net value of the assets? The stadium and training ground are assets. But you can't sell the stadium and the land is covenanted so the only way you can make money out of it is by playing football there- you therefore cannot look at it in isolation. It is part and parcel of the loss-making football operation. And if the business is repairable by someone with more brain cells than Ashley then why should Fat Mike get the benefit of an inflated price? Let the purchaser take the benefit. Liverpool was bought for about £400m and they still need a further £400m for a ground, hence they are going to be in debt for decades. £100m for a club which in all honesty is only a bit of depth away from walking this league isnt too far a stretch given the obvious advantages should you regain promotion. The club debts are by and large a result of gross mismanagement and downright stupidity, any new buyer who sees this and makes the right decisions and appointments can change all that. It's not about debt, it's about cash. Debt is fine. We all hate Ashley here but if he sold for £50m can you justifiably say thats a fair price when promotion and limited spending would claw that fee back in 18 months even in a eventual relegation. We could well have ended up with another schmuck on for a quick profit at that price... Hold on, a better class of businessman pays double the price- what sort of logic is that? And how would promotion claw that amount back? Would we just stop paying wages? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 newcastle do not own their stadium, so to the club it is worthless. We own the building and the land is under lease. I am sure the lease will be worth something too, how many years left on the lease? The land is only worth something to people who do not want to use it as a football stadium, which the council will not allow. It just means the club can never sell up and develop houses on it, a bit like York city have agreed to do. The council can revoke the lease I guess but it is virtually never ever going to happen. To someone wanting to set up a new football club in Newcastle the stadium would be worth £100m to them as the only other option would be to buy or lease the land elsewhere and rebuild a new one, probably cost twice that to do it that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Justification for the price? You think the stadium is worthless? Training ground/academy worthless? How many people have paid for players that we havent seen money for yet? What about goodwill, sure the club isnt looking too rosey financially but its repairable for anyone with real business acumen. Good point- what about goodwill? Why would any purchaser consider an asset that is merely an accounting filler to reflect a purchase price over the net value of the assets? The stadium and training ground are assets. But you can't sell the stadium and the land is covenanted so the only way you can make money out of it is by playing football there- you therefore cannot look at it in isolation. It is part and parcel of the loss-making football operation. And if the business is repairable by someone with more brain cells than Ashley then why should Fat Mike get the benefit of an inflated price? Let the purchaser take the benefit. Liverpool was bought for about £400m and they still need a further £400m for a ground, hence they are going to be in debt for decades. £100m for a club which in all honesty is only a bit of depth away from walking this league isnt too far a stretch given the obvious advantages should you regain promotion. The club debts are by and large a result of gross mismanagement and downright stupidity, any new buyer who sees this and makes the right decisions and appointments can change all that. It's not about debt, it's about cash. Debt is fine. We all hate Ashley here but if he sold for £50m can you justifiably say thats a fair price when promotion and limited spending would claw that fee back in 18 months even in a eventual relegation. We could well have ended up with another schmuck on for a quick profit at that price... Hold on, a better class of businessman pays double the price- what sort of logic is that? And how would promotion claw that amount back? Would we just stop paying wages? Regardless of what you can do with it the ground is part and parcel of our club, without it revenue is limited. Obvious surely? If you buy a corner shop you pay for the property/goodwill etc, you cant buy the business as a separate entity as without the premises can you? Am struggling to see what benefit Ashley gets here. He pays £250m and sells for £100m. Care to fill in his amazing benefit here? Clearly you dont understand that at a far lower price more people will want to buy, its logical that some will only see a quick profit as a result. Without spending addition fees then TV/Premier League deals would give a large PROFIT. I am daffled you cant see where wages fit in to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 LOCK THIS THREAD AND THE TAKEOVER WILL HAPPEN!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 newcastle do not own their stadium, so to the club it is worthless. We own the building and the land is under lease. I am sure the lease will be worth something too, how many years left on the lease? The land is only worth something to people who do not want to use it as a football stadium, which the council will not allow. It just means the club can never sell up and develop houses on it, a bit like York city have agreed to do. The council can revoke the lease I guess but it is virtually never ever going to happen. To someone wanting to set up a new football club in Newcastle the stadium would be worth £100m to them as the only other option would be to buy or lease the land elsewhere and rebuild a new one, probably cost twice that to do it that way. I think it's a rolling 99 year lease or something like that. The land is owned by the freemen of the city, and I'm sure there is some sort of covenant that the land has to be used for a sports ground, hence why SJH wanted to turn it into a smaller arena type facility when the club wanted to move to leazes park Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 newcastle do not own their stadium, so to the club it is worthless. We own the building and the land is under lease. I am sure the lease will be worth something too, how many years left on the lease? The land is only worth something to people who do not want to use it as a football stadium, which the council will not allow. It just means the club can never sell up and develop houses on it, a bit like York city have agreed to do. The council can revoke the lease I guess but it is virtually never ever going to happen. To someone wanting to set up a new football club in Newcastle the stadium would be worth £100m to them as the only other option would be to buy or lease the land elsewhere and rebuild a new one, probably cost twice that to do it that way. I think it's a rolling 99 year lease or something like that. The land is owned by the freemen of the city, and I'm sure there is some sort of covenant that the land has to be used for a sports ground, hence why SJH wanted to turn it into a smaller arena type facility when the club wanted to move to leazes park Wasn't it one of the first things SJH did when he came in, speak to the council and ask them to grant a longer lease, 99years. Wast this agreed back in 1992 hence the start of the work on the Leazes end? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 newcastle do not own their stadium, so to the club it is worthless. We own the building and the land is under lease. I am sure the lease will be worth something too, how many years left on the lease? The land is only worth something to people who do not want to use it as a football stadium, which the council will not allow. It just means the club can never sell up and develop houses on it, a bit like York city have agreed to do. The council can revoke the lease I guess but it is virtually never ever going to happen. To someone wanting to set up a new football club in Newcastle the stadium would be worth £100m to them as the only other option would be to buy or lease the land elsewhere and rebuild a new one, probably cost twice that to do it that way. I think it's a rolling 99 year lease or something like that. The land is owned by the freemen of the city, and I'm sure there is some sort of covenant that the land has to be used for a sports ground, hence why SJH wanted to turn it into a smaller arena type facility when the club wanted to move to leazes park Wasn't it one of the first things SJH did when he came in, speak to the council and ask them to grant a longer lease, 99years. Wast this agreed back in 1992 hence the start of the work on the Leazes end? Its protected in the 1988 Town Moor Act, not sure if the lease runs from that date or was amended after SJH came in though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willow Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 The deal is done with Sheards 'group'. It will be announced tomorrow morning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 The deal is done with Sheards 'group'. It will be announced tomorrow morning. . There is more chance of Katie Price winning a Nobel Peace Prize Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filflop1 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Oh well its afternoon now and nothing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Fuck me sideways! The lad has already said he was taking the piss! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willow Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Fuck me sideways! The lad has already said he was taking the piss! that'll teach me not to scroll down the page. I just rarely check this thread anymore, its a total waste of time.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts