RIP sale thread.

[Taylor Swift]

Shearer is effectively working for nothing after the expiration of his eight-match contract, but expects to hear this week whether his plans for the wholesale restructuring of Newcastle have been approved by Barclays Bank...

 

The man's a legend.

 

Is he still a legend if he asks for £2.5m/year to manage a Championship team?

[TêteDeMaure]

Shearer is effectively working for nothing after the expiration of his eight-match contract, but expects to hear this week whether his plans for the wholesale restructuring of Newcastle have been approved by Barclays Bank...

 

The man's a legend.

 

Is he still a legend if he asks for £2.5m/year to manage a Championship team?

 

Eternal.

[David Icke - Son of God]

The risk of rebuilding us is pretty large though, especially for the next few years in which any owner will have to accept that they're going to lose money.

 

A sensible thing would be to get a new loan on the stadium, done at a reasonable rate (shame the economy's shit and the banks are being tight) and use that money to get us up into the Premiership. But any new owner will have to prepared for the worst i.e. staying in the CC for a couple of years and losing a lot of money.

 

Change Premiership to Champions League and that is pretty much how Shepherd ran the club when he was here. No bloody way we should go back to doing that.

[bovineblue]

Shearer is effectively working for nothing after the expiration of his eight-match contract, but expects to hear this week whether his plans for the wholesale restructuring of Newcastle have been approved by Barclays Bank...

 

The man's a legend.

 

Is he still a legend if he asks for £2.5m/year to manage a Championship team?

 

 

Would have to know full details of any contract to make a proper judgement of course.

[madras]

The risk of rebuilding us is pretty large though, especially for the next few years in which any owner will have to accept that they're going to lose money.

 

A sensible thing would be to get a new loan on the stadium, done at a reasonable rate (shame the economy's s*** and the banks are being tight) and use that money to get us up into the Premiership. But any new owner will have to prepared for the worst i.e. staying in the CC for a couple of years and losing a lot of money.

 

Change Premiership to Champions League and that is pretty much how Shepherd ran the club when he was here. No bloody way we should go back to doing that.

depends what the debts are when the new owner comes in. there is nothing wrong with borrowing to try and improve. the problem comes when you've borrowed and haven't improved then borrow again and don't improve.

[David Icke - Son of God]

The risk of rebuilding us is pretty large though, especially for the next few years in which any owner will have to accept that they're going to lose money.

 

A sensible thing would be to get a new loan on the stadium, done at a reasonable rate (shame the economy's s*** and the banks are being tight) and use that money to get us up into the Premiership. But any new owner will have to prepared for the worst i.e. staying in the CC for a couple of years and losing a lot of money.

 

Change Premiership to Champions League and that is pretty much how Shepherd ran the club when he was here. No bloody way we should go back to doing that.

depends what the debts are when the new owner comes in. there is nothing wrong with borrowing to try and improve. the problem comes when you've borrowed and haven't improved then borrow again and don't improve.

 

Football is not an exact science. No one can say we will improve for certain which means your doing a FFS and rolling the dice and if you don't get the correct outcome you're going to have to keep rolling the dice. Nowadays it's even more of an issue especially when clubs have to run just to stand still.

 

It's not a risk worth taking and i'm amazed some people are suggesting it considering the flap they got themselves in over 'teh books!!1!11' when Ashley came in.

[womblemaster]

"If he's willing to write off the £110m "

 

 

why should ashley write off his loan?  The loan will stand even if ashleys sells up, i would assume.

 

AT least thats what i would do i i were him.

[Matt]

The risk of rebuilding us is pretty large though, especially for the next few years in which any owner will have to accept that they're going to lose money.

 

A sensible thing would be to get a new loan on the stadium, done at a reasonable rate (shame the economy's shit and the banks are being tight) and use that money to get us up into the Premiership. But any new owner will have to prepared for the worst i.e. staying in the CC for a couple of years and losing a lot of money.

 

I don't think banks would be interested. Might get interest from more speculative investors but I'm not sure we'd want to be putting our club's future with those sort of folk (like Man Utd have). The club is leaking cash and as a severe credit risk borrowing would be cripplingly expensive. In the current climate every loan is severely scrutinised and the argument for lending money to NUFC is really pretty weak. We're relying on people with money to put in.

[madras]

"If he's willing to write off the £110m "

 

 

why should ashley write off his loan?  The loan will stand even if ashleys sells up, i would assume.

 

AT least thats what i would do i i were him.

then he would have very little chance of getting anything back.

[David Icke - Son of God]

The lack of a loan will make NUFC so much easier to sell and it's clear he wants to jettison us ASAP because he can't afford to keep pumping cash into the club at an unrealistic rate.

[Taylor Swift]

Look, man, I'm gonna sound like NE5 here, but having debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Debt itself does not mean the club is in trouble. Debt just means that it's easier to run the club without having the owners put money in and out, in and out.

 

Growth only comes from investment. So if you don't have enough money to invest, you obviously need to find it from somewhere. Reasonable borrowing can and is done by every company in the world, football clubs included. It's just the way it is. How do you think big companies invest in new factories etc.? Shareholders aren't asked to put in money. The company must get a loan and banks will give them that loan if there's good reason to believe that they can service it.

 

Do you think Arsenal had £350m in the bank when they decided to build the Emirates? No. They probably had something like £50m, generated £25m profits/year and said to a bank 'ok, we'll put £50m down, you help us with the rest and we'll give you £10m of our profits every year for the next x years' (I'm obviously leaving out the details of Highbury, real estate etc.). That's investing in the future and it's a way to achieve growth.

 

If we can finance a loan against future season tickets, say for £50m, and invest in the team to get us promoted. That investment would pay off in pretty much a year or two. Then if the people who run the club are smart, they'll save a bit in case shit happens, but they'll invest a bit more so we can become comfortably mid-table. Then get some more debt and invest. And so and so on. When shit happens, use your backup plan and scale down your operations (sell players, reduce wages etc. but doesn't need to be drastic if it's well-thought out).

 

The reason Freddy fucked us up was there was no real backup plan. His backup plan was to invest even more - using the bank's money, of course - and hope for the best. That's why we were in a lot of shit when he was bought out.

[madras]

Look, man, I'm gonna sound like NE5 here, but having debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Debt itself does not mean the club is in trouble. Debt just means that it's easier to run the club without having the owners put money in and out, in and out.

 

Growth only comes from investment. So if you don't have enough money to invest, you obviously need to find it from somewhere. Reasonable borrowing can and is done by every company in the world, football clubs included. It's just the way it is. How do you think big companies invest in new factories etc.? Shareholders aren't asked to put in money. The company must get a loan and banks will give them that loan if there's good reason to believe that they can service it.

 

Do you think Arsenal had £350m in the bank when they decided to build the Emirates? No. They probably had something like £50m, generated £25m profits/year and said to a bank 'ok, we'll put £50m down, you help us with the rest and we'll give you £10m of our profits every year for the next x years' (I'm obviously leaving out the details of Highbury, real estate etc.). That's investing in the future and it's a way to achieve growth.

 

If we can finance a loan against future season tickets, say for £50m, and invest in the team to get us promoted. That investment would pay off in pretty much a year or two. Then if the people who run the club are smart, they'll save a bit in case s*** happens, but they'll invest a bit more so we can become comfortably mid-table. Then get some more debt and invest. And so and so on. When s*** happens, use your backup plan and scale down your operations (sell players, reduce wages etc. but doesn't need to be drastic if it's well-thought out).

 

The reason Freddy f***ed us up was there was no real backup plan. His backup plan was to invest even more - using the bank's money, of course - and hope for the best. That's why we were in a lot of s*** when he was bought out.

you sound like most people all the way through,no problem with manageable debt......the last patragraph would have seen NE5  explode though

[David Icke - Son of God]

The Arsenal comparison is foolish. The Emirates is a long term durable asset whereas you were talking about using loans to improve the playing squad which is fraught with problems and uncertainty.

 

You're talking about financing a football club like it's a piece of piss and it isn't. It isn't simply a case of cutting back here and trimming there because of the very nature of the modern game. If it was really that simple do you not think every club would be doing it?

 

You are right about one thing though, debt isn't neccassarily a bad thing. The problem is that we're not in a position to knock at the door of a bank and ask for some money and we probably wont be for some time. At this moment we need someone to come in and put their heart, soul and chequebook on the line rather than asking some city banker for a few million.

[Stifler]

I've just heard a rumour that Ingvar Kamprad is one of the two interested parties in taken over the club.

 

I really doubt it, but do hope so.

 

 

I only heard from a text from a friend of a friend who works at St James', I doubt it's true, but we can all live in hope.

[Greg]

I've just heard a rumour that Ingvar Kamprad is one of the two interested parties in taken over the club.

 

I really doubt it, but do hope so.

 

Where did you hear this?

[Matt]

Look, man, I'm gonna sound like NE5 here, but having debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Debt itself does not mean the club is in trouble. Debt just means that it's easier to run the club without having the owners put money in and out, in and out.

 

Growth only comes from investment. So if you don't have enough money to invest, you obviously need to find it from somewhere. Reasonable borrowing can and is done by every company in the world, football clubs included. It's just the way it is. How do you think big companies invest in new factories etc.? Shareholders aren't asked to put in money. The company must get a loan and banks will give them that loan if there's good reason to believe that they can service it.

 

Do you think Arsenal had £350m in the bank when they decided to build the Emirates? No. They probably had something like £50m, generated £25m profits/year and said to a bank 'ok, we'll put £50m down, you help us with the rest and we'll give you £10m of our profits every year for the next x years' (I'm obviously leaving out the details of Highbury, real estate etc.). That's investing in the future and it's a way to achieve growth.

 

If we can finance a loan against future season tickets, say for £50m, and invest in the team to get us promoted. That investment would pay off in pretty much a year or two. Then if the people who run the club are smart, they'll save a bit in case shit happens, but they'll invest a bit more so we can become comfortably mid-table. Then get some more debt and invest. And so and so on. When shit happens, use your backup plan and scale down your operations (sell players, reduce wages etc. but doesn't need to be drastic if it's well-thought out).

 

But there is no reason to beleive we can service it- we are in a regime which favours football creditors over all others (although the legality of this is questionable and is what has led so many clubs to the wall), where huge sums can be invested with often zero return. You could spend £50m and go riding back to the PL as champions, but it's not assured. For an investor that's fine as long as you appreciate the risk when you get involved. For a bank that's unacceptable. Taking into account just how close to the wind we've been sailing for some time now, lending a significant amount on a long-term basis would be crazy. A lender needs to know where a business is going to be in 5 years if it's going to make a 5 year loan. We don't know where we are from one day to the next.

 

That's not to say we couldn't raise money, but it would be at such a cost that you might as well use investors cash or take a shareholders loan- at lease the shareholders should have more faith in the business than an outsider and so the rate would reflect this lower risk.

 

I'm sure if we had a settled business, operating in the PL then we could probably optimise the business by taking on some debt but right now is the worst possible time.

[David Icke - Son of God]

I've just heard a rumour that Ingvar Kamprad is one of the two interested parties in taken over the club.

 

I really doubt it, but do hope so.

 

 

I only heard from a text from a friend who works at St James', I doubt it's true, but we can all live in hope.

 

So do I

 

I don't think an 83 year old Swede with a semi-on for flat pack furniture would be interested in us.

[Stifler]

I've just heard a rumour that Ingvar Kamprad is one of the two interested parties in taken over the club.

 

I really doubt it, but do hope so.

 

 

I only heard from a text from a friend who works at St James', I doubt it's true, but we can all live in hope.

 

So do I

 

I don't think an 83 year old Swede with a semi-on for flat pack furniture would be interested in us.

 

If it does come off it means he could build us a new stadium from a flat pack using only alan keys with a retro look.

[David Icke - Son of God]

I've just heard a rumour that Ingvar Kamprad is one of the two interested parties in taken over the club.

 

I really doubt it, but do hope so.

 

 

I only heard from a text from a friend who works at St James', I doubt it's true, but we can all live in hope.

 

So do I

 

I don't think an 83 year old Swede with a semi-on for flat pack furniture would be interested in us.

 

If it does come off it means he could build us a new stadium from a flat pack using only alan keys with a retro look.

 

It would take ages to put up though as no fucker would be able to read the instructions.

[Guest Brewcastle]

I've just heard a rumour that Ingvar Kamprad is one of the two interested parties in taken over the club.

I really doubt it, but do hope so.

I only heard from a text from a friend who works at St James', I doubt it's true, but we can all live in hope.

So do I

I don't think an 83 year old Swede with a semi-on for flat pack furniture would be interested in us.

The IKEA-ideoligy fits last seasons squad: We accept your money, but don't care about the job or the result - help yourself......

[Stifler]

I've just heard a rumour that Ingvar Kamprad is one of the two interested parties in taken over the club.

I really doubt it, but do hope so.

I only heard from a text from a friend who works at St James', I doubt it's true, but we can all live in hope.

So do I

I don't think an 83 year old Swede with a semi-on for flat pack furniture would be interested in us.

The IKEA-ideoligy fits last seasons squad: We accept your money, but don't care about the job or the result - help yourself......

 

thats so true though

[Taylor Swift]

Now is a good time for us to take on debt because we have none! I'm talking about really short-term debt here just to get us started. We can't even get through a fuckin season without getting into cash-flow problems. I'm talking £50m, 10 year loan, no principal paid for first two years. Some shit like that. Because we have no debt, this can be guaranteed against season ticket sales. Estimate them conservatively and I think the club can still get a good deal. Then, when we're back in the Premiership (£50m will get us there, no doubt), refinance the loan immediately and save some money/invest in other stuff to reduce the risk.

 

It'll take a couple of seasons to sort out the shit that's stuck on our books (Duff, Smith etc.) but this will can be done at a more affordable cost if we're in the Premiership i.e. we're not as desperate to get these fuckers off our books.

[Taylor Swift]

Look, man, I'm gonna sound like NE5 here, but having debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Debt itself does not mean the club is in trouble. Debt just means that it's easier to run the club without having the owners put money in and out, in and out.

 

Growth only comes from investment. So if you don't have enough money to invest, you obviously need to find it from somewhere. Reasonable borrowing can and is done by every company in the world, football clubs included. It's just the way it is. How do you think big companies invest in new factories etc.? Shareholders aren't asked to put in money. The company must get a loan and banks will give them that loan if there's good reason to believe that they can service it.

 

Do you think Arsenal had £350m in the bank when they decided to build the Emirates? No. They probably had something like £50m, generated £25m profits/year and said to a bank 'ok, we'll put £50m down, you help us with the rest and we'll give you £10m of our profits every year for the next x years' (I'm obviously leaving out the details of Highbury, real estate etc.). That's investing in the future and it's a way to achieve growth.

 

If we can finance a loan against future season tickets, say for £50m, and invest in the team to get us promoted. That investment would pay off in pretty much a year or two. Then if the people who run the club are smart, they'll save a bit in case shit happens, but they'll invest a bit more so we can become comfortably mid-table. Then get some more debt and invest. And so and so on. When shit happens, use your backup plan and scale down your operations (sell players, reduce wages etc. but doesn't need to be drastic if it's well-thought out).

 

But there is no reason to beleive we can service it- we are in a regime which favours football creditors over all others (although the legality of this is questionable and is what has led so many clubs to the wall), where huge sums can be invested with often zero return. You could spend £50m and go riding back to the PL as champions, but it's not assured. For an investor that's fine as long as you appreciate the risk when you get involved. For a bank that's unacceptable. Taking into account just how close to the wind we've been sailing for some time now, lending a significant amount on a long-term basis would be crazy. A lender needs to know where a business is going to be in 5 years if it's going to make a 5 year loan. We don't know where we are from one day to the next.

 

That's not to say we couldn't raise money, but it would be at such a cost that you might as well use investors cash or take a shareholders loan- at lease the shareholders should have more faith in the business than an outsider and so the rate would reflect this lower risk.

 

I'm sure if we had a settled business, operating in the PL then we could probably optimise the business by taking on some debt but right now is the worst possible time.

 

We don't have any shareholders.

 

Man Utd have total debt of £700m, £500m from banks at 8% and £200m from hedge funds at 14%. We're obviously not looking to raise those sums but it's possible, and probably needed.

 

I don't see a knight-in-shining-armour, swooping in and helping us spend our way out of the CC. It's gotta be done with good management and right now it's sensible, hell, it's vital management, to get a loan.

[Matt]

I'm talking £50m, 10 year loan, no principal paid for first two years. Some shit like that.

 

Most banks will not lend businesses for longer than three years. I've seen a few on a 5-year but these are strong credit companies, it's starying to ease a little. Ten year money to NUFC is simply not available. Locking in cash generally requires a bigger number than £50m bacuase of the costs of the structure and the rating processes. The idea that there would be no repayment for the first two years won't make anyone more comfortable.

 

You'll find some fund or other out there who will lend it to you- but at an interest rate of anything from 10-20%, which is probably well above what investors would be looking at for a return at this stage of the process.

 

We're obviously not looking to raise those sums but it's possible, and probably needed.

 

I think it's fair to say that the ease of borrowing money has changed a little since the Glazers took over Man Utd.

[chicago_shearer]

This is going to go on for weeks, isn't it?