Dave Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 if barclays reject this loan, they can fuck there bank account and ISA's right off +1 Imagine a thousand Geordies ringing up to cancel their accounts giving 'You wankers fucked our club' as the reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 David Craig has been quiet about this and Sol Campbell on SSN, think someone might be finding a new job soon I had to take a second look at that, i read it as Craig David! "the club was sold on monday, tuesday or wednesay" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not exactly ideal timing to be relying on a bank. Especially if it means them taking any element of risk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not exactly ideal timing to be relying on a bank. Especially if it means them taking any element of risk. Havent you seen Barclays recent profits? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedudeabides Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not exactly ideal timing to be relying on a bank. Especially if it means them taking any element of risk. They've just announced a £3bn profit for the first half of the year, so they're hardly struggling. Bastards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pedro_de_geordieo Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Knowing our luck it'll be the Sunderland branch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Hopefully there are some Newcastle fans within Barclay's who are making the decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not exactly ideal timing to be relying on a bank. Especially if it means them taking any element of risk. Havent you seen Barclays recent profits? I have but they're not likely to be keen to attract negative PR from taking chances tis all I'm saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not exactly ideal timing to be relying on a bank. Especially if it means them taking any element of risk. Havent you seen Barclays recent profits? I have but they're not likely to be keen to attract negative PR from taking chances tis all I'm saying. Is it positive PR to refuse to assist such a high-profile organisation though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I don't see why an organisation such as a bank who make hundreds of millions and sometimes billions a year don't buy Ashley out. Although it isn't their market they could make money out of it by paying £100m now, investing £10-20m net on transfers which I think would almost guarantee promotion if they appoint the right people, the company would make a profit even if they sold us a year or 2 later making the shareholders happy, and I imagine a lot of our fans would switch their bank accounts to whichever bank it is, making it win-win. I really don't understand why someone hasn't realised this, or I might be completely wrong which if I am could someone explain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 It's far too risky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clintdempsey Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Seems to me like it's far too risky if we were a PL team. If a bank or financial vehicle bought us now for 80-100m and invested say 20-30m in the team we would most likely get promoted without a shadow of a doubt. They would then be able to make a healthy profit as soon as next summer or probably an even bigger one if they continued to pump money into the club for another season to get us in to the Top 8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 It's far too risky. I really don't see why, I don't think it will take a genius to get us promoted, making the company a far more valuable asset. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 On the Moat/Barclays thing (and bear in mind I obviously haven't got a clue about what's going on there), could it be that he is simply having to prove to them - as he did to SP - that he has the backing to guarantee the overdraft facility the club currently has? Surely if the ownership of the club is to change hands then that facility and anything outstanding on it will have to be transferred also? I can't see how or why he would be looking for a loan from them to buy the club in the first place, as has been speculated. It wouldn't stack up, not least regarding him being SP's preferred bidder, or being able to make immediate player transfers. Be interesting to hear from one of our accountant types. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza ladra Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 It's far too risky. I really don't see why, I don't think it will take a genius to get us promoted, making the company a far more valuable asset. Perhaps they were told that Shearer will come back to manage? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattypnufc Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 On the Moat/Barclays thing (and bear in mind I obviously haven't got a clue about what's going on there), could it be that he is simply having to prove to them - as he did to SP - that he has the backing to guarantee the overdraft facility the club currently has? Surely if the ownership of the club is to change hands then that facility and anything outstanding on it will have to be transferred also? I can't see how or why he would be looking for a loan from them to buy the club in the first place, as has been speculated. It wouldn't stack up, not least regarding him being SP's preferred bidder, or being able to make immediate player transfers. Be interesting to hear from one of our accountant types. Thats what I've been thinking. Just couldnt be arsed to type it. Cheers Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 It's far too risky. I really don't see why, I don't think it will take a genius to get us promoted, making the company a far more valuable asset. Perhaps they were told that Shearer will come back to manage? Forget Moat, they can appoint their own chairman who can appoint the manager they think is best to get us promoted be it Curbishley, Dave Jones or Shearer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza ladra Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 It's far too risky. I really don't see why, I don't think it will take a genius to get us promoted, making the company a far more valuable asset. Perhaps they were told that Shearer will come back to manage? Forget Moat, they can appoint their own chairman who can appoint the manager they think is best to get us promoted be it Curbishley, Dave Jones or Shearer That would be best. I saw Gordon Strachan's name pop up somewhere; think he'd take us straight back up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 On the Moat/Barclays thing (and bear in mind I obviously haven't got a clue about what's going on there), could it be that he is simply having to prove to them - as he did to SP - that he has the backing to guarantee the overdraft facility the club currently has? Surely if the ownership of the club is to change hands then that facility and anything outstanding on it will have to be transferred also? I can't see how or why he would be looking for a loan from them to buy the club in the first place, as has been speculated. It wouldn't stack up, not least regarding him being SP's preferred bidder, or being able to make immediate player transfers. Be interesting to hear from one of our accountant types. Surely he could secure the loan in the same way the old one was, basically backed my ticket sales up to 28k ? We have more season ticket holders than that I think so it would easily be covered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I don't see why an organisation such as a bank who make hundreds of millions and sometimes billions a year don't buy Ashley out. Although it isn't their market they could make money out of it by paying £100m now, investing £10-20m net on transfers which I think would almost guarantee promotion if they appoint the right people, the company would make a profit even if they sold us a year or 2 later making the shareholders happy, and I imagine a lot of our fans would switch their bank accounts to whichever bank it is, making it win-win. I really don't understand why someone hasn't realised this, or I might be completely wrong which if I am could someone explain. If they had dealings with our teams though it would be a conflict of interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 On the Moat/Barclays thing (and bear in mind I obviously haven't got a clue about what's going on there), could it be that he is simply having to prove to them - as he did to SP - that he has the backing to guarantee the overdraft facility the club currently has? Surely if the ownership of the club is to change hands then that facility and anything outstanding on it will have to be transferred also? I can't see how or why he would be looking for a loan from them to buy the club in the first place, as has been speculated. It wouldn't stack up, not least regarding him being SP's preferred bidder, or being able to make immediate player transfers. Be interesting to hear from one of our accountant types. Surely he could secure the loan in the same way the old one was, basically backed my ticket sales up to 28k ? We have more season ticket holders than that I think so it would easily be covered. what if he's already done that to get this far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 On the Moat/Barclays thing (and bear in mind I obviously haven't got a clue about what's going on there), could it be that he is simply having to prove to them - as he did to SP - that he has the backing to guarantee the overdraft facility the club currently has? Surely if the ownership of the club is to change hands then that facility and anything outstanding on it will have to be transferred also? I can't see how or why he would be looking for a loan from them to buy the club in the first place, as has been speculated. It wouldn't stack up, not least regarding him being SP's preferred bidder, or being able to make immediate player transfers. Be interesting to hear from one of our accountant types. Trouble is none of us really knows what sort of deal is being discussed and what structure Moat is attempting to put together for the finance. But I read it the same way as you. In theory any ovedraft facility is repayable on demand and a change of ownership would certainly trigger an investigation by Barclays as to whether they wanted to continue to offer the facility or not, and what security they have for it. Although there is no reason why Seymour Pearce's proof of funds test couldn't be satisfied, at least in part, by a bank saying they were prepared to loan the buyer £x million I'd be surprised (and a bit worried) if that is what is going on here. But as I said, I'm in the dark on this like everyone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I can't see why we couldn't negotiate the following with a bank: You give us the money we need, and the club will give you 5% of stadium revenue for as long as it takes to pay off 125% of what you gave us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I can't see why we couldn't negotiate the following with a bank: You give us the money we need, and the club will give you 5% of stadium revenue for as long as it takes to pay off 125% of what you gave us. the club is making a loss. thats one hefty debt to level on the club under the circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Not exactly ideal timing to be relying on a bank. Especially if it means them taking any element of risk. Havent you seen Barclays recent profits? I have but they're not likely to be keen to attract negative PR from taking chances tis all I'm saying. Is it positive PR to refuse to assist such a high-profile organisation though? I would've thought they'd be applauded for being risk averse given the current climate. Let's face it, they're not likely to get any stick for not 'taking a chance' on us if that's what they're required to do in this Moat deal. I wouldn't have thought they'd be obliged to assist us any more than they would another medium size outfit? May be wrong though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts