RIP sale thread.

[Guest Hellhammer]

Hopefully this article regarding Llambias is true.

[80]

The Sunday Sun understands Llambias’s position is under serious review, with Ashley considering appointing an experienced football administrator to run United’s day-to-day affairs.

 

What an idea.

[manorpark]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

No, the short term future is poor for us.

 

The medium term future is poor for us.

 

The long term future is poor for us.

 

Basically, as "achievers" and "potential achievers" I think we have HAD IT.  We will always just be able to look back at the recent 'SBR' and 'first-KK' eras . . . and D R E A M.  Thats all.

[Colocho]

Telegraph says it is Moat.

[Robster]

"The SundaySun understands"

[GM]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

No, the short term future is poor for us.

 

The medium term future is poor for us.

 

The long term future is poor for us.

 

Basically, as "achievers" and "potential achievers" I think we have HAD IT.  We will always just be able to look back at the recent 'SBR' and 'first-KK' eras . . . and D R E A M.  Thats all.

 

It really is refreshing to see someone on here displaying such a positive outlook.

[Guest Phil K]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

No, the short term future is poor for us.

 

The medium term future is poor for us.

 

The long term future is poor for us.

 

Basically, as "achievers" and "potential achievers" I think we have HAD IT.  We will always just be able to look back at the recent 'SBR' and 'first-KK' eras . . . and D R E A M.  Thats all.

 

It really is refreshing to see someone on here displaying such a positive outlook.

 

Please point out where he's wrong though.

In short, he isn't.

Its ludicrous that teams about a fifth of the size of this club (Notts Cty, Portsmouth) have no problem finding buyers.

[indi]

The sale price of something is somewhere between the least it's possessor will accept for it and the most anyone else will pay for it.

 

A business is not an entity separate from it's debts and assets - they are part of the business.

 

Moat (possibly) isn't prepared/able to pay £100m for this particular business if it still owes Barclays a certain amount of money. I imagine he wouldn't mind buying this business even if it had those debts if Ashley only wanted £85m from him (this is possibly not the case, but that's another discussion). Quite straight-forward - Ashley is playing a role the club not being sold.

 

Does that make him a bad man? Don't care, I'll leave that to you lot, but the price of this club isn't £100m until it's sold for that (here's a statement of the obvious - the worth of this club to most people would obviously be very different if Ashley isn't wanting the money he's loaned it back to what it is if he is). If Moat's still quibbling over it's debts and isn't handing over a heavy suitcase to Ashley then it's pretty clear he hasn't agreed to buy it for that figure - if Barclays were able to make clear they aren't shifting then he isn't (necessarily) going to buy it anyway. Any agreement is at present non-existent in real terms.

 

As for the idea the club's sale price is £100m, that's as much a fantasy of Ashley's as me saying I want to sell my trousers but won't accept less than £40k for them (they are very nice trousers) - the number doesn't matter until someone is actually willing to engage with it. Is anyone willing to engage with Ashley's number for the business as it stands (debts, assets and all)? We'll see.

 

You are of course right that something is only worth what someone will pay for it and until the deal is completed there's no such thing as a selling price, however we are not at that stage yet. We are in the middle of negotiations, the process is ongoing and therefore that way of looking at things is not applicable in my view.

 

If it's okay, I'll use a metaphor:

 

Say you're selling your car and someone makes you an offer which meets your asking price, then that's it as far as you're concerned someone has offered you what you wanted, they are prepared to pay you, as the seller, what you wanted, but that's not it as far as the purchaser is concerned. They have a load of additional costs to consider, the running costs of owning that car; tax, insurance, petrol costs, maintenance, etc, and they need to work out if they can afford those costs before they agree the deal. If you've given them all the information relating to those costs beforehand (due diligence) and they've indicated that they're still prepared to meet your asking price, but are stalling because they're unsure that they can afford the running costs then is that your responsibility? No, I don't think it is, that's for them to sort out.

 

The club's overdraft is part of the running costs of owning NUFC and if Moat is struggling to be able to meet those costs then it's up to him to sort it out. To go back to the car metaphor, I could easily afford to purchase an old Jag or whatever, but there's no way I could afford to run one. So like most people that means I'd never buy one, but if I was stupid enough to try then I certainly wouldn't expect the bloke who was selling it to me to reduce his selling price to cover my first year's insurance premiums or whatever. I'd consider that my responsibility and I'd also be aware that running costs are just that, they continue year-on-year and even if I had them covered for the first year what would happen in the second and every one after that?

 

Now Ashley has done some stuff to help Moat out with the running costs, reducing the wage bill, cutting the overdraft, and seemingly negotiating with Barclays to allow it to remain at a significantly higher level than what they initially wanted, which is more help than most people would give to someone trying to buy something off them. He's tuned the car to make it run more efficiently. However, at some point the responsibility for this sale going through falls squarely on Moat's shoulders, either he has the money to do this or he doesn't, and if he doesn't he is the one who has been wasting everyone's time, not Ashley. Moat knew the price of the club, Ashley had said that he wanted £100m and that was non-negotiable right from the start, Moat has seemingly agreed that it's a fair price and he did so after being told all the associated costs of running the club (due diligence). If he's now decided that he can't afford those costs then what was he doing making an offer in the first place?

 

To go back to your point about things being worth what people are prepared to pay for them. Yes, Ashley could just decide that he wants rid and if that means taking a hit and paying off the overdraft for Moat, so be it, but is that a good thing for the club? Do we want an owner who had to rely on the generosity of the previous one to be able to cover running costs? I'm not sure that we do, like I said before, anyone who takes over this club is going to have to invest significantly in the playing squad, if only to get the fans onside. What's more, for the first few years at least. that investment is going to have to come out of their pocket as the club is currently making a huge loss and it will take time for them to turn that around, if they ever do. Does that sound like Moat? Doesn't seem like it at the moment.

 

I think regardless of people's views on how this has all happened, who they blame, and so-on, we can all agree that it's got to a point where for the good of the club it needs to be owned by someone else, but that doesn't mean anyone else. If Moat's not got the wherewithal to sort this overdraft issue on his own without relying on a hand-out from Ashley then I don't think he's that someone and that won't be down to Ashley, it'll be down to him.

 

Much like we always seem to say about our managerial appointments, this one needs to be right, we need to right owner to come in this time, we can't afford to get the wrong one again, and if that means it's not Moat and we have to wait, then so be it.

[indi]

God, I'm starting to sound like NE5.

 

No-one's going to read that anyway, are they.

[Dave]

Not with that disgraceful formatting, no.

[Decky]

Romeo dun?

[indi]

Not with that disgraceful formatting, no.

 

Apologies. It's been rectified.

[Thespence]

Just when you think things cant get any worse I was made aware yesterday that in The Sun last week Eric the former owner of Warbury has lost control of Warbury & was looking to buy the Toon!!!!

 

 

Surely this fella would fail the joke that is the fit & proper persons test after what he has done to Warbury over the years & that he is cartoon character.

 

[GM]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

No, the short term future is poor for us.

 

The medium term future is poor for us.

 

The long term future is poor for us.

 

Basically, as "achievers" and "potential achievers" I think we have HAD IT.  We will always just be able to look back at the recent 'SBR' and 'first-KK' eras . . . and D R E A M.  Thats all.

 

It really is refreshing to see someone on here displaying such a positive outlook.

 

Please point out where he's wrong though.

In short, he isn't.

Its ludicrous that teams about a fifth of the size of this club (Notts Cty, Portsmouth) have no problem finding buyers.

 

I share some of the concerns already raised about Moat's capacity to fund the club to the extent that a large section of the support seem to think is their birthright. It's always bemused me a bit that we expect some rich benefactor to come along and spraff their millions on the club like it's some Arab Sheikh's plaything...I mean, the only time that one would work would be if the club actually was an Arab Sheik's plaything.

 

The only point I was really taking issue with was the inherent defeatism in manorpark's post - not that I'm saying it's not entirely understandable given current circumstances. I just don't see what being all Eeyore about our prospects does for us as fans, other than the spread defeatism throughout the ranks.

 

 

[Guest BlacknWhiteArmy]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

No, the short term future is poor for us.

 

The medium term future is poor for us.

 

The long term future is poor for us.

 

Basically, as "achievers" and "potential achievers" I think we have HAD IT.  We will always just be able to look back at the recent 'SBR' and 'first-KK' eras . . . and D R E A M.  Thats all.

 

It really is refreshing to see someone on here displaying such a positive outlook.

 

Actually it's a very valid statement. And true.

[Teasy]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

The huge income you mention means that the owner doesn't need to be able to "afford" to run the club.  Unlike Everton, Villa or Man City this club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

A rich generous owner would be nice though

[indi]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club?  Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success.  This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option.  Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity.

 

Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation.

[Teasy]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club?  Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success.  This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option.  Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity.

 

Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation.

 

We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be in profit each season before any new transfers, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill.

 

In the last financial report we had a wage bill of £72m, paid £9m on interest for our debts before they went to Ashley and paid Allardyce and his cronies between £6m and £8m (can't remember the exact figure).  We also had no sponsorship income due to Shepherd blowing our £4m per season deal in one go.  Because of all that we lost £30m

 

Next season we'd start off with a wage bill in the mid to low 30m range, almost no interest payments, no payout to sacked managers and a new sponsorship deal.  All we'd really have to deal with IMO is the loss from this season.  Which should have been greatly reduced due to the £26m we've made from transfers.

[indi]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club?  Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success.  This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option.  Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity.

 

Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation.

 

We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be making money, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill.  Once Geremi and Butt have been released in July our wage bill will be down to less then half what it was last season (in the mid to low 30's).  Our large debt is a £100m loan from the owner with no interest (was £9m per year) and there's no chance any new owner would accept the full debt anyway (no'one will pay £100m plus £100m debt for the club).

 

I think that "IF" needs to be a bit bigger to be honest, also there's no way that the current squad could survive in the Premiership, so to do that would require us to pay out on transfer fees and increase the wage bill. Also, like I said, "success" is a relative term and I can't imagine that many fans would put up with scrabbling around in the lower reaches of the Premiership or being a yo-yo club given recent events. Can you?

[NJS]

To add to your car thing Indi, if Ashley does not sell then don't forget he has to meet the MOT, tax etc for the coming year (and expectations to invest in the squad in Jan - I know, I know) so like that person with the old jag he may have to decide that it's worth taking a hit on the price to wash his hands of it.

 

 

[Frazzle]

Someone the other day posted the net spend of PL clubs with Arsenal spending less than Boro and Sunderland.  You can do well without money, it just makes it more difficult.

[indi]

To add to your car thing Indi, if Ashley does not sell then don't forget he has to meet the MOT, tax etc for the coming year (and expectations to invest in the squad in Jan - I know, I know) so like that person with the old jag he may have to decide that it's worth taking a hit on the price to wash his hands of it.

 

 

 

He may well do that, but if that's the only way the deal can be done then he'll have done Moat a huge favour, although I'm not to sure if he'll have done the club much of a favour.

[Teasy]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club?  Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success.  This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option.  Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity.

 

Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation.

 

We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be making money, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill.  Once Geremi and Butt have been released in July our wage bill will be down to less then half what it was last season (in the mid to low 30's).  Our large debt is a £100m loan from the owner with no interest (was £9m per year) and there's no chance any new owner would accept the full debt anyway (no'one will pay £100m plus £100m debt for the club).

 

I think that "IF" needs to be a bit bigger to be honest, also there's no way that the current squad could survive in the Premiership, so to do that would require us to pay out on transfer fees and increase the wage bill. Also, like I said, "success" is a relative term and I can't imagine that many fans would put up with scrabbling around in the lower reaches of the Premiership or being a yo-yo club given recent events. Can you?

 

Well that's the whole point of this discussion though isn't it?  Wether Moat could afford to keep us in the Premiership IF we get back up and push us on.  IF we were to go back up our costs would be so much lower then our revenue that we'd make a large profit (around £30m).  That money would allow us to bring in new players, and if we need a bit extra a small bank loan would be easy to come by given we'd be a Premiership club with such a large revenue.

 

£25m-£30m should be more then enough to keep us in the Premiership the first season we get back up.  As long as we keep our ongoing costs to a reasonable level and don't do a Shepherd (take on a top 4 wage bill when we're still mid table, sack a manager every year at a cost of £6m plus and spend all our 5 year sponsorship money in one month) we'll always have money to spend ourselves and plenty of cash to pay interest on any loans we may need.  With means we can push on each season.

 

This is all without Moat finding a penny himself.  Its quite possible he has backing and even £10m a season added to the money the club would bring in would put us in an excellent position to move forwards.  Really the important question we need to ask about Moat is not how much money had has but is he knowledgeable enough to make the right decisions at the club.

[Skeletor]

Someone the other day posted the net spend of PL clubs with Arsenal spending less than Boro and Sunderland.  You can do well without money, it just makes it more difficult.

 

I don't think it can be done today though. Players have the patience of a pea and so won't stay for a few seasons while a club builds it's squad up. They're off the minute one of the top 4 (or perhaps City) wave the £££ in their face.

[indi]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club?  Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success.  This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option.  Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity.

 

Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation.

 

We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be making money, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill.  Once Geremi and Butt have been released in July our wage bill will be down to less then half what it was last season (in the mid to low 30's).  Our large debt is a £100m loan from the owner with no interest (was £9m per year) and there's no chance any new owner would accept the full debt anyway (no'one will pay £100m plus £100m debt for the club).

 

I think that "IF" needs to be a bit bigger to be honest, also there's no way that the current squad could survive in the Premiership, so to do that would require us to pay out on transfer fees and increase the wage bill. Also, like I said, "success" is a relative term and I can't imagine that many fans would put up with scrabbling around in the lower reaches of the Premiership or being a yo-yo club given recent events. Can you?

 

Well that's the whole point of this discussion though isn't it?  Wether Moat could afford to keep us in the Premiership if we get back up and push us on.  What I'm saying is he won't need his own money to get new players and add to the wage bill because our costs would be so much lower then our revenue that we'd make a large profit (around £30m).  That money would allow us to bring in new players, and if we need a big extra a small bank loan would be easy to come by given we'd be a Premiership club with such a large revenue.  Are you telling me that £30m+ is not enough to keep us in the Premiership the first season we get back up?  Obviously the season after we'll generate more cash and can use that to push on.  As long as we don't do a Shepherd and take on a top 4 wage bill when we're still mid table and sack a manager every year at a cost of £6m plus we'll always have money to spend ourselves and plenty of cash to pay interest on any loans we may need.

 

If I'd known it's that easy, I'd have put in a bid myself.

 

Seriously though, we will be in a much better financial position if we get promoted this season, you're right. Ashley would have basically taken the hit for Shepherd's mismanagement and we'd probably end up having screwed him over more than the other way around. The club might well be in the position to make a profit, but we all know it's not as simple as that, and no, I'm not sure that £30m is enough to keep us in the Premiership if it's supposed to cover fees and wages and everything else.