thewellander Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Find a better buyer? Ashley will want £300m again. I guess I'm just not convinced that Moat has the ability to spend on our team. I'm afraid we'll go from an owner who is unwilling to invest to one who is unable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Find a better buyer? Ashley will want £300m again. I guess I'm just not convinced that Moat has the ability to spend on our team. I'm afraid we'll go from an owner who is unwilling to invest to one who is unable. Shepherd spent massive sums of money on the team without ever putting in a penny of his money (in fact he was taking large sums out for himself) so I don't see why Moat would find it hard to get finances for team building. As long as he keeps the wage bill relatively in check the club itself would generate money to spend on players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garth Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Find a better buyer? Ashley will want £300m again. I guess I'm just not convinced that Moat has the ability to spend on our team. I'm afraid we'll go from an owner who is unwilling to invest to one who is unable. Shepherd spent massive sums of money on the team without ever putting in a penny of his money. So you want to go back to those days do you?. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Find a better buyer? Ashley will want £300m again. I guess I'm just not convinced that Moat has the ability to spend on our team. I'm afraid we'll go from an owner who is unwilling to invest to one who is unable. Shepherd spent massive sums of money on the team without ever putting in a penny of his money. So you want to go back to those days do you?. the club is capable of generating large sums of money by itself whats needed is for it to be run properly and costs kept in check and thus there will be money to spend which the club generated itself, what shephard did was spend without heed whether we could pay for it or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 garth The point I was making is that you don't need massive personal wealth be able to spend on players at a club like this. In fact if its run well no personal investment is required at all (well apart from the fans personal investment ). As long as you keep the wage bill to a reasonable level this club will generate plenty of excess cash which can then be invested in players and used to pay interest on any necessary loans (obviously it won't be silly money like Man City but nobody expects that). Shepherd actually did that for some time, unfortunately he lost the plot and let the wage bill get to a stupid level in the last few years, which in the end is what fucked us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garth Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 garth The point I was making is that you don't need massive personal wealth be able to spend on players at a club like this. In fact if its run well no personal investment is required at all (well apart from the fans personal investment ). As long as you keep the wage bill to a reasonable level this club will generate plenty of excess cash which can then be invested in players and used to pay interest on any necessary loans (obviously it won't be silly money like Man City but nobody expects that). Shepherd actually did that for some time, unfortunately he lost the plot and let the wage bill get to a stupid level in the last few years, which in the end is what f***ed us. I agree with most of what you say, but the bit bold is not where I want to go again. Which in my opinion is what started our decline apart from the fucked up managerial appointments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 garth The point I was making is that you don't need massive personal wealth be able to spend on players at a club like this. In fact if its run well no personal investment is required at all (well apart from the fans personal investment ). As long as you keep the wage bill to a reasonable level this club will generate plenty of excess cash which can then be invested in players and used to pay interest on any necessary loans (obviously it won't be silly money like Man City but nobody expects that). Shepherd actually did that for some time, unfortunately he lost the plot and let the wage bill get to a stupid level in the last few years, which in the end is what f***ed us. I agree with most of what you say, but the bit bold is not where I want to go again. Which in my opinion is what started our decline apart from the f***ed up managerial appointments. As a business, possibly, but how did that affect proceedings on the pitch? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Moat will never buy the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Llambias on way out of United? Sep 20 2009 by Neil Farrington, Sunday Sun NEWCASTLE UNITED managing director Derek Llambias could be poised to leave the club – even if Mike Ashley remains as owner. 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. Llambias, whose background is in casinos, has been derided on Tyneside since Ashley’s reign turned sour early last season. And Ashley himself, although he harbours increasing doubts about selling Newcastle in the short term, is pondering whether the presence of a less divisive figure at the helm would both placate fans and be attractive to would-be buyers further down the line. Llambias has made a series of public statements this summer, starting with his insistence that he and Ashley wanted Alan Shearer “to be the manager 110 per cent”, which have undermined his credibility. The final straw for some came with news of Llambias streaking across the St James’s Park pitch for a bet following Newcastle’s opening home game of the season against Reading. United have now confirmed that a bidder, understood to be Barry Moat, has met Ashley’s £100 million asking price – three months after Llambias claimed “at least two” £100 million-plus offers had been received. But with Moat still to convince club bankers Barclays to extend him the same overdraft privileges as they do to United now, Ashley knows he may have to wait things out a while longer before offloading the club. As revealed in last week’s Sunday Sun, two American-based groups are in talks with Ashley and have now completed the due diligence process. But they have yet to put firm offers on the table, further suggesting a resolution to what has become a tortuously drawn-out saga remains some way off. http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/newcastle-utd/newcastle-utd-news/2009/09/20/llambias-on-way-out-of-united-79310-24732242/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hellhammer Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Hopefully this article regarding Llambias is true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Telegraph says it is Moat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 "The SundaySun understands" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 God, I'm starting to sound like NE5. No-one's going to read that anyway, are they. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Not with that disgraceful formatting, no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Romeo dun? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Not with that disgraceful formatting, no. Apologies. It's been rectified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts