I hope you now realise...

[Parky]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings.

 

And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive.  Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt.

and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went.

 

So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere.

 

It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted.

 

As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot.

 

Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. 

 

If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!!

 

Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league.

you mean he never wanted to do an abaramovich (even on a smaller scale) and bankroll the club ?

 

Why buy a football club if you're not going to grow the business?

[Parky]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

Well it was more than 70m and if you include the wage bill, installments made to other clubs on players purchased more than we had. 

 

I could cut the wage bill to 15m in the time it takes to make 5 phone calls.

come on then

 

You can't afford me. 

[madras]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings.

 

And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive.  Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt.

and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went.

 

So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere.

 

It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted.

 

As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot.

 

Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. 

 

If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!!

 

Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league.

you mean he never wanted to do an abaramovich (even on a smaller scale) and bankroll the club ?

 

Why buy a football club if you're not going to grow the business?

huge difference between growing a business and bankrolling something.......do you think abramovich  or al fayed will get their money back ?

[relámpago blanco]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

Well it was more than 70m and if you include the wage bill, installments made to other clubs on players purchased more than we had. 

 

I could cut the wage bill to 15m in the time it takes to make 5 phone calls.

Try and get people like Damien duff to join another club on 25k a week and see if he asks for us to make up the other 40k then.

[madras]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

Well it was more than 70m and if you include the wage bill, installments made to other clubs on players purchased more than we had. 

 

I could cut the wage bill to 15m in the time it takes to make 5 phone calls.

come on then

 

You can't afford me. 

and you can't just get rid of players as easy as you think.

[quayside]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings.

 

And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive.  Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt.

 

The only problem the club has is badly negotiated player contracts, other than that it the last club left on the shelf with massive potential.

 

So you are not of the opinion that the club is worth f*ck all?

[Parky]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings.

 

And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive.  Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt.

 

The only problem the club has is badly negotiated player contracts, other than that it the last club left on the shelf with massive potential.

 

So you are not of the opinion that the club is worth f*ck all?

 

At 100m (+debt) with these players, in this league with these monkeys on crack running it - it's worth fuck all.

 

I've always maintained 50-60m was a fair price.

[quayside]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings.

 

And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive.  Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt.

and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went.

 

So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere.

 

It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted.

 

As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot.

 

Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. 

 

If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!!

 

Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league.

 

Regardless of whether Ashley could have borrowed 3 times the amount of his entire wealth (an "interesting"suggestion), why would he do so to fund a venture like a football club? The likes of Lerner, Abramovitch, Al Fayed have all funded their club from existing funds. The reality is that Ashley is not rich enough to own a Premiership club - so I can go along with your last sentence.   

[Parky]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings.

 

And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive.  Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt.

and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went.

 

So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere.

 

It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted.

 

As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot.

 

Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. 

 

If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!!

 

Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league.

 

Regardless of whether Ashley could have borrowed 3 times the amount of his entire wealth (an "interesting"suggestion), why would he do so to fund a venture like a football club? The likes of Lerner, Abramovitch, Al Fayed have all funded their club from existing funds. The reality is that Ashley is not rich enough to own a Premiership club - so I can go along with your last sentence.   

 

Partially agree. Common sense dictates if you get into the big boys game, you need to act like a big boy (or give a passing resemblence). I don't think he ever understood the football business, but what killed him was not hiring a good team with good advisors. A General manager with a strong football background should have been the first port of call.

[quayside]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings.

 

And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive.  Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt.

and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went.

 

So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere.

 

It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted.

 

As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot.

 

Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. 

 

If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!!

 

Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league.

 

Regardless of whether Ashley could have borrowed 3 times the amount of his entire wealth (an "interesting"suggestion), why would he do so to fund a venture like a football club? The likes of Lerner, Abramovitch, Al Fayed have all funded their club from existing funds. The reality is that Ashley is not rich enough to own a Premiership club - so I can go along with your last sentence.   

 

Partially agree. Common sense dictates if you get into the big boys game, you need to act like a big boy (or give a passing resemblence). I don't think he ever understood the football business, but what killed him was not hiring a good team with good advisors. A General manager with a strong football background should have been the first port of call.

 

He's always run Sports Direct with trusted mates in positions of responsibility. And he's sort of got away with it. But selliing crap to Chavs where marketing is largely based on communicating false closing down sales and fictitious discounts is a far cry from the relatively sophisticated world of Premiership football - out of his depth in every possible way. 

[Parky]

How much does it cost to service 70m of debt a year? Think before you ans.

servicing it isn't too bad if you can afford and it's not added to. the problems kick in when you have to borrow more to service the debt amongst other outgoings.

 

And of course you would need to keep increasing the debt to remain competitive.  Especially with money you could have used for players or wages now being spent on servicing debt.

and meanwhile people think money to come in off transfers can only be used to bring in transfers. for example a club makes a 3mill profit on transfers but is losing 20mill a year and people wonder where the 3mill transfer profit went.

 

So true, the amount of times I've heard "we made an £Xm profit on transfers in this window...."! FFS, it all comes of the bottom line, if the club is struggling financially the money has to go elsewhere.

 

It's rather like the "Ashley has pocketed all the Sky money and put none of it back into the club" argument that frequently gets spouted.

 

As madras said servicing £70 million of debt isn't so bad (even at the high rates the club had borrowed at in 2007) the real issue is where you go from there when the borrowing has failed to create an obviously sustainable business. The directors want more debt to have another go and rebuild it but there is nothing to borrow against added to which, from the lenders point of view, there is a question mark over the board's ability to deliver something that will fly. Debt from outside finacial institutions never was available in infinite quantity - it was only available if the the lender had some security on it or a highly credible case could be made for the debt being recoverable. Flash forward to 2008/2009 and it's even harder to make a case for a commercial loan, especially when the balance sheet is shot.

 

Brummie made the point about Villa's debt being due to Lerner and several other clubs are in a similar position. The only cap on the their borrowing is what the owner is prepared to make available, and that is an entirely different proposition to going into the financial markets and raising the same level of debt. The servicing cost of owner debt is frequently zero as well. If our eventual outcome leaves us in a position where our new owners need to borrow heavily from banks and other institutions then I don't believe it will end well. 

 

If MA was serious and with assets/cash of around 1b, he could have had access to funds around 3b no problem, the sad fact is that he never had the vision to grow the club in the market and was anxious to penny pinch and ask the players to buy their own suits etc....ffs!!

 

Wrong owner, wrong time, wrong league.

 

Regardless of whether Ashley could have borrowed 3 times the amount of his entire wealth (an "interesting"suggestion), why would he do so to fund a venture like a football club? The likes of Lerner, Abramovitch, Al Fayed have all funded their club from existing funds. The reality is that Ashley is not rich enough to own a Premiership club - so I can go along with your last sentence.   

 

Partially agree. Common sense dictates if you get into the big boys game, you need to act like a big boy (or give a passing resemblence). I don't think he ever understood the football business, but what killed him was not hiring a good team with good advisors. A General manager with a strong football background should have been the first port of call.

 

He's always run Sports Direct with trusted mates in positions of responsibility. And he's sort of got away with it. But selliing crap to Chavs where marketing is largely based on communicating false closing down sales and fictitious discounts is a far cry from the relatively sophisticated world of Premiership football - out of his depth in every possible way. 

 

Yup.

 

What a fucktoid.