Administration?

[Guest fading star]

I don’t agree but see little point in going over this again. It’s a tired and largely irrelevant debate. Ashey is in charge, our future is in his hands.

 

You don't agree? It's there in black and white as is Ashley's assurance to the auditors that he'd fund it despite its insolvent position. Tired and largely irrelevant debate maybe.....although your comment that the club needed to get its "house in order" and wasn't a "basket case" is  bollox tbh.

I’m not debating the figures, only that the club wasn’t the basket case it is now. Suggesting our current plight is comparable to where we were two years ago, now that’s bollocks.

[quayside]

I dont agree but see little point in going over this again. Its a tired and largely irrelevant debate. Ashey is in charge, our future is in his hands.

 

You don't agree? It's there in black and white as is Ashley's assurance to the auditors that he'd fund it despite its insolvent position. Tired and largely irrelevant debate maybe.....although your comment that the club needed to get its "house in order" and wasn't a "basket case" is  bollox tbh.

Im not debating the figures, only that the club wasnt the basket case it is now. Suggesting our current plight is comparable to where we were two years ago, now thats bollocks.

 

Obviously I can see why you say that - relegation. Although there is an argument that we were already on a path leading there I won't go there because it's pure speculation.

 

In terms of the clubs survival you are wrong. Being insolvent isn't a problem if the man who is owed the money isn't going to pull the plug and commits to support it. Abramovitch, Lerner, Al Fayed even Gibson all own their clubs and have commtted their support but if, for any reason, they found themselves unable or unwilling to continue their support then those clubs go bust. Under our previous regime, none of the shareholders ever really committed anything much by way of funding and we were in the hands of external lenders. There was no commitment from our lenders other than a commercial loan agreement. Why do you think Liverpool are crapping themselves?

 

[Guest fading star]

I see. You’re assessing the financial position in relative not absolute terms, which is all well and good if you think Ashley will prop up the club this season if he can’t sell. Personally I don’t think there’s a cat in hells chance he will.

 

As it was two years ago we’re reliant on new investment to dig the club out of it’s hole. What’s changed is the depth of the hole and how much money is needed to set us back on the right track.

[Parky]

I see. You’re assessing the financial position in relative not absolute terms, which is all well and good if you think Ashley will prop up the club this season if he can’t sell. Personally I don’t think there’s a cat in hells chance he will.

 

As it was two years ago we’re reliant on new investment to dig the club out of it’s hole. What’s changed is the depth of the hole and how much money is needed to set us back on the right track.

 

MA no longer has the desire or the kind of money the other owners have I'm afraid. He certainly won't farm his last millions into us, his actions say as much.

[quayside]

I see. You’re assessing the financial position in relative not absolute terms, which is all well and good if you think Ashley will prop up the club this season if he can’t sell. Personally I don’t think there’s a cat in hells chance he will.

 

As it was two years ago we’re reliant on new investment to dig the club out of it’s hole. What’s changed is the depth of the hole and how much money is needed to set us back on the right track.

 

I'm not assessing anything relatively. In absolute terms pre Ashley the club was a basket case with a very large question mark over its viability, post Ashley its a basket case with a question mark over its viability. The difference being the size of the question mark.

 

The thing about this debate is that it will have a determinable conclusion - I think Ashley wants to sell and if he wants to sell he will find a way. You on the other hand think he wants somehow to  bleed the club dry and then close it down. If I'm wrong I will willingly put my hands up and admit I was wrong.

[madras]

I see. You’re assessing the financial position in relative not absolute terms, which is all well and good if you think Ashley will prop up the club this season if he can’t sell. Personally I don’t think there’s a cat in hells chance he will.

As it was two years ago we’re reliant on new investment to dig the club out of it’s hole. What’s changed is the depth of the hole and how much money is needed to set us back on the right track.

thats half the point.....where was the funding going to come from 2 years ago when everything was hocked, we were paying out a lot more than we were taking in. what bank would loan to a company in that position ?

 

financially this is the way we were headed if we didn't get champs league football. at the time we were saying everton and spurs couldn't compete with wages for the likes of duff,parker and emre....we couldn't afford it either.

[Guest fading star]

It’s history, that’s what it is. The bank’s might have helped out, the same people in the current NE consortium might have invested, they’re might have been an additional share issue. Shepherd might have stuck with Fat Sam and saved us £15m in compensation claims. We don’t know, it doesn’t matter, none of it excuses what Ashley has done, or changes anything.

 

NUFC are in far deeper shit now than they were two years ago, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to have their head examined.

[quayside]

It is history and Ashley has screwed up badly. The rest of your post is crap.

[madras]

It’s history, that’s what it is. The bank’s might have helped out, the same people in the current NE consortium might have invested, they’re might have been an additional share issue. Shepherd might have stuck with Fat Sam and saved us £15m in compensation claims. We don’t know, it doesn’t matter, none of it excuses what Ashley has done, or changes anything.

 

NUFC are in far deeper s*** now than they were two years ago, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to have their head examined.

purely my opinion but the banks may have lent us enough to make up the shortfall (more debt to finance) they certain;y wouldn't have lent us any to invest

 

the consortium...hey mr getty might have ran into some geordies at the ballet and enjoyed the banter so much he'd have bankrolled the club.

 

if anyone had kept fat sam in my opinion we;d have been relegated a season earlier.

 

none of it excuses the management of the club by both parties over the past 5 or 6 years.

[Parky]

It’s history, that’s what it is. The bank’s might have helped out, the same people in the current NE consortium might have invested, they’re might have been an additional share issue. Shepherd might have stuck with Fat Sam and saved us £15m in compensation claims. We don’t know, it doesn’t matter, none of it excuses what Ashley has done, or changes anything.

 

NUFC are in far deeper shit now than they were two years ago, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to have their head examined.

 

Cacapa on 45k I rest my case.

[Guest fading star]

It’s history, that’s what it is. The bank’s might have helped out, the same people in the current NE consortium might have invested, they’re might have been an additional share issue. Shepherd might have stuck with Fat Sam and saved us £15m in compensation claims. We don’t know, it doesn’t matter, none of it excuses what Ashley has done, or changes anything.

 

NUFC are in far deeper s*** now than they were two years ago, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to have their head examined.

 

Cacapa on 45k I rest my case.

[madras]

It’s history, that’s what it is. The bank’s might have helped out, the same people in the current NE consortium might have invested, they’re might have been an additional share issue. Shepherd might have stuck with Fat Sam and saved us £15m in compensation claims. We don’t know, it doesn’t matter, none of it excuses what Ashley has done, or changes anything.

 

NUFC are in far deeper s*** now than they were two years ago, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to have their head examined.

 

Cacapa on 45k I rest my case.

barton on the payroll.

[Parky]

It’s history, that’s what it is. The bank’s might have helped out, the same people in the current NE consortium might have invested, they’re might have been an additional share issue. Shepherd might have stuck with Fat Sam and saved us £15m in compensation claims. We don’t know, it doesn’t matter, none of it excuses what Ashley has done, or changes anything.

 

NUFC are in far deeper s*** now than they were two years ago, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to have their head examined.

 

Cacapa on 45k I rest my case.

barton on the payroll.

 

[Teasy]

You just love that Picard thing don't you

[Parky]

You just love that Picard thing don't you

 

Yeah. 

[Dave]

[UV]

At 30th June 2007 the club was insolvent ffs - who was going to put up a guarantee to fund it for the next 12 months if Ashley didn't? Shepherd? Douglas Hall?

 

In terms of the clubs survival you are wrong. Being insolvent isn't a problem if the man who is owed the money isn't going to pull the plug and commits to support it. Abramovitch, Lerner, Al Fayed even Gibson all own their clubs and have commtted their support but if, for any reason, they found themselves unable or unwilling to continue their support then those clubs go bust. Under our previous regime, none of the shareholders ever really committed anything much by way of funding and we were in the hands of external lenders. There was no commitment from our lenders other than a commercial loan agreement. Why do you think Liverpool are crapping themselves?

 

 

The club may have been balance sheet insolvent (as are half the premiership) but it was not cash flow insolvent. "Many large companies operate permanently in this state." - Wiki. The net debt repayments were around £7m per year. This is not an unsustainable amount. The majority of the debt was the £45m remaining on the stadium loan which was a long term contract that couldn't be foreclosed on unless the ownership changed, so your doomsday scenario of all the debtors wanting their money NOW could not in fact have happened under the old board with the financial arrangements they had in place.

 

In 06-07, the operational loss before player trading & amortisation was £0.3m. The actual cash flow loss was < £10m more out than in. Not great, however this was in the knowledge that we were going to get a £18m boost in turnover the following year from TV revenue alone. Running the club in the same way (that includes having a £10m transfer budget), with anything less than a 14% increase in expenditure (due to wages say) would have seen us break even or make a profit. Are you telling me that would have been impossible to do under the old board? That they were inevitably going to let costs run away even more? It's possible they would have increased the debt slightly if they could get the finance, but it was certainly not a necessary inevitability as some are making out.

 

I know I keep mentioning it, but I think it's an important point when the old board is being accused of financial mismanagement based on the amount of the debt, but the majority of the debt was due to the stadium expansion which was paying for itself over time and bringing in extra revenue. I don't know about you, but I don't call this financial mismanagement, I call it a shrewd investment. Only the remainder of the debt, around £25m, was due to "wasting money on trophy players", to get us into Europe on average 1 year in 2. This level of operational debt is less than most clubs in the premiership (all but Blackburn and the the 3 promoted teams in 07-08). Again, I fail to see how anyone can call this level of debt financial mismanagement,.

 

Finally, in response to you're implication that we were in debt up to our absolute limit in another thread, I apologise for the lack of credibility and the location of the link, but I couldn't find a better source. I have no reason to think the Man U fan made it up :

 

http://www.joinmust.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24381

 

Newcastle United tops ICC's Credit Premier League with Top Score

Mar 21 2006

Creditman - UK

 

ICC Credit, one of the UK’s leading credit reference agencies, reports that unlike its current position in the Premier League, it isn’t Chelsea that is riding high in ICC Credit’s Risk Score League. ‘The Champion’ is Newcastle United who beat all other top premiership clubs.

 

Newcastle currently heads the ICC Credit Risk Score League with a score of 88, with Manchester United a close second with a score of 87. Reflecting the current state of play in the Premier League, Blackburn Rovers and Bolton sit next with scores of 84 and 81 respectively. Interestingly, Chelsea has a lower credit score of 78.

 

ICC Credit’s Risk Score is a predictor of whether a company is credit worthy, or not. The Score is used to predict whether a company will fail within the next 12 months (and therefore not able to pay its debts) and takes into account variables such as financial, demographic and trading criteria.

 

I guess a lot must have changed in a year.

 

The idea that we were days away from administration before Ashley came along and saved us (Ashley himself being the biggest proponent of this myth) is about as ridiculous as the idea of Ashley putting the club into administration now.

[madras]

At 30th June 2007 the club was insolvent ffs - who was going to put up a guarantee to fund it for the next 12 months if Ashley didn't? Shepherd? Douglas Hall?

 

In terms of the clubs survival you are wrong. Being insolvent isn't a problem if the man who is owed the money isn't going to pull the plug and commits to support it. Abramovitch, Lerner, Al Fayed even Gibson all own their clubs and have commtted their support but if, for any reason, they found themselves unable or unwilling to continue their support then those clubs go bust. Under our previous regime, none of the shareholders ever really committed anything much by way of funding and we were in the hands of external lenders. There was no commitment from our lenders other than a commercial loan agreement. Why do you think Liverpool are crapping themselves?

 

 

The club may have been balance sheet insolvent (as are half the premiership) but it was not cash flow insolvent. "Many large companies operate permanently in this state." - Wiki. The net debt repayments were around £7m per year. This is not an unsustainable amount. The majority of the debt was the £45m remaining on the stadium loan which was a long term contract that couldn't be foreclosed on unless the ownership changed, so your doomsday scenario of all the debtors wanting their money NOW could not in fact have happened under the old board with the financial arrangements they had in place.

 

In 06-07, the operational loss before player trading & amortisation was £0.3m. The actual cash flow loss was < £10m more out than in. Not great, however this was in the knowledge that we were going to get a £18m boost in turnover the following year from TV revenue alone. Running the club in the same way (that includes having a £10m transfer budget), with anything less than a 14% increase in expenditure (due to wages say) would have seen us break even or make a profit. Are you telling me that would have been impossible to do under the old board? That they were inevitably going to let costs run away even more? It's possible they would have increased the debt slightly if they could get the finance, but it was certainly not a necessary inevitability as some are making out.

 

I know I keep mentioning it, but I think it's an important point when the old board is being accused of financial mismanagement based on the amount of the debt, but the majority of the debt was due to the stadium expansion which was paying for itself over time and bringing in extra revenue. I don't know about you, but I don't call this financial mismanagement, I call it a shrewd investment. Only the remainder of the debt, around £25m, was due to "wasting money on trophy players", to get us into Europe on average 1 year in 2. This level of operational debt is less than most clubs in the premiership (all but Blackburn and the the 3 promoted teams in 07-08). Again, I fail to see how anyone can call this level of debt financial mismanagement,.

 

Finally, in response to you're implication that we were in debt up to our absolute limit in another thread, I apologise for the lack of credibility and the location of the link, but I couldn't find a better source. I have no reason to think the Man U fan made it up :

 

http://www.joinmust.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24381

 

Newcastle United tops ICC's Credit Premier League with Top Score

Mar 21 2006

Creditman - UK

 

ICC Credit, one of the UK’s leading credit reference agencies, reports that unlike its current position in the Premier League, it isn’t Chelsea that is riding high in ICC Credit’s Risk Score League. ‘The Champion’ is Newcastle United who beat all other top premiership clubs.

 

Newcastle currently heads the ICC Credit Risk Score League with a score of 88, with Manchester United a close second with a score of 87. Reflecting the current state of play in the Premier League, Blackburn Rovers and Bolton sit next with scores of 84 and 81 respectively. Interestingly, Chelsea has a lower credit score of 78.

 

ICC Credit’s Risk Score is a predictor of whether a company is credit worthy, or not. The Score is used to predict whether a company will fail within the next 12 months (and therefore not able to pay its debts) and takes into account variables such as financial, demographic and trading criteria.

 

I guess a lot must have changed in a year.

 

The idea that we were days away from administration before Ashley came along and saved us (Ashley himself being the biggest proponent of this myth) is about as ridiculous as the idea of Ashley putting the club into administration now.

but was it not that everything had been hocked and the club was losing money...where was the money going to come from to cover these year on year losses. i personally think we were reaching a position like west ham when the banks just said "sorry,no more"

[Parky]

Not a bad post UV, food for thought.

[UV]

but was it not that everything had been hocked and the club was losing money...where was the money going to come from to cover these year on year losses. i personally think we were reaching a position like west ham when the banks just said "sorry,no more"

 

All that typing and you didn't even read it?

[Parky]

but was it not that everything had been hocked and the club was losing money...where was the money going to come from to cover these year on year losses. i personally think we were reaching a position like west ham when the banks just said "sorry,no more"

 

All that typing and you didn't even read it?

 

He never does.

[madras]

but was it not that everything had been hocked and the club was losing money...where was the money going to come from to cover these year on year losses. i personally think we were reaching a position like west ham when the banks just said "sorry,no more"

 

All that typing and you didn't even read it?

 

He never does.

yes i read it, the main point that stood out for me was "before player trading" did you catch that bit...almost as if it doesn't count and we don't have to pay for the paying staff.

 

if you'd notice the club hasn't been able to break even,even with the extra 18mill....how come ? or are you saying the old board would have been able to ship out the high earners and brought players in on lowetr wages. just that with the players brought in by the club before fred left that didn't seem to be the plan.

[UV]

but was it not that everything had been hocked and the club was losing money...where was the money going to come from to cover these year on year losses. i personally think we were reaching a position like west ham when the banks just said "sorry,no more"

 

All that typing and you didn't even read it?

 

He never does.

yes i read it, the main point that stood out for me was "before player trading" did you catch that bit...almost as if it doesn't count and we don't have to pay for the paying staff.

 

if you'd notice the club hasn't been able to break even,even with the extra 18mill....how come ? or are you saying the old board would have been able to ship out the high earners and brought players in on lowetr wages. just that with the players brought in by the club before fred left that didn't seem to be the plan.

 

Did you read the sentence after it? The one which includes all cash in and cash out? I said that there was a loss of around £10m, it's not like I'm trying to hide it. Most of that came from the debt repayments, player trading actually amounted to about £2m of the loss.

 

That Summer we shipped out high earners like Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro and Solano. There was certainly plenty of scope for at least maintaining the wage bill at a similar level.

 

The reason the club hasn't been able to break even in the last few years is due to how Ashley has "sorted out the finances" since he took over. The 2 main ones being the fact that the wage bill has gone up around 22% in 2 years, and that the club has been paying upfront for transfers in while transfers out are being paid for in instalments (not necessarily a bad thing per se, but it doesn't look good on the books until you've been running it like that for a few years).

[madras]

but was it not that everything had been hocked and the club was losing money...where was the money going to come from to cover these year on year losses. i personally think we were reaching a position like west ham when the banks just said "sorry,no more"

 

All that typing and you didn't even read it?

 

He never does.

yes i read it, the main point that stood out for me was "before player trading" did you catch that bit...almost as if it doesn't count and we don't have to pay for the paying staff.

 

if you'd notice the club hasn't been able to break even,even with the extra 18mill....how come ? or are you saying the old board would have been able to ship out the high earners and brought players in on lowetr wages. just that with the players brought in by the club before fred left that didn't seem to be the plan.

 

Did you read the sentence after it? The one which includes all cash in and cash out? I said that there was a loss of around £10m, it's not like I'm trying to hide it. Most of that came from the debt repayments, player trading actually amounted to about £2m of the loss.

 

That Summer we shipped out high earners like Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro and Solano. There was certainly plenty of scope for at least maintaining the wage bill at a similar level.

 

The reason the club hasn't been able to break even in the last few years is due to how Ashley has "sorted out the finances" since he took over. The 2 main ones being the fact that the wage bill has gone up around 22% in 2 years, and that the club has been paying upfront for transfers in while transfers out are being paid for in instalments (not necessarily a bad thing per se, but it doesn't look good on the books until you've been running it like that for a few years).

we shipped out those players, were we still paying for them ? did the wage bill go up because of their replacements ?

 

put simply we were losing money and i personally couldn't see the playing side getting better, which would lead to more losses. (basically what has happened in any case)

[quayside]

At 30th June 2007 the club was insolvent ffs - who was going to put up a guarantee to fund it for the next 12 months if Ashley didn't? Shepherd? Douglas Hall?

 

In terms of the clubs survival you are wrong. Being insolvent isn't a problem if the man who is owed the money isn't going to pull the plug and commits to support it. Abramovitch, Lerner, Al Fayed even Gibson all own their clubs and have commtted their support but if, for any reason, they found themselves unable or unwilling to continue their support then those clubs go bust. Under our previous regime, none of the shareholders ever really committed anything much by way of funding and we were in the hands of external lenders. There was no commitment from our lenders other than a commercial loan agreement. Why do you think Liverpool are crapping themselves?

 

 

The club may have been balance sheet insolvent (as are half the premiership) but it was not cash flow insolvent. "Many large companies operate permanently in this state." - Wiki. The net debt repayments were around £7m per year. This is not an unsustainable amount. The majority of the debt was the £45m remaining on the stadium loan which was a long term contract that couldn't be foreclosed on unless the ownership changed, so your doomsday scenario of all the debtors wanting their money NOW could not in fact have happened under the old board with the financial arrangements they had in place.

 

In 06-07, the operational loss before player trading & amortisation was £0.3m. The actual cash flow loss was < £10m more out than in. Not great, however this was in the knowledge that we were going to get a £18m boost in turnover the following year from TV revenue alone. Running the club in the same way (that includes having a £10m transfer budget), with anything less than a 14% increase in expenditure (due to wages say) would have seen us break even or make a profit. Are you telling me that would have been impossible to do under the old board? That they were inevitably going to let costs run away even more? It's possible they would have increased the debt slightly if they could get the finance, but it was certainly not a necessary inevitability as some are making out.

 

I know I keep mentioning it, but I think it's an important point when the old board is being accused of financial mismanagement based on the amount of the debt, but the majority of the debt was due to the stadium expansion which was paying for itself over time and bringing in extra revenue. I don't know about you, but I don't call this financial mismanagement, I call it a shrewd investment. Only the remainder of the debt, around £25m, was due to "wasting money on trophy players", to get us into Europe on average 1 year in 2. This level of operational debt is less than most clubs in the premiership (all but Blackburn and the the 3 promoted teams in 07-08). Again, I fail to see how anyone can call this level of debt financial mismanagement,.

 

Finally, in response to you're implication that we were in debt up to our absolute limit in another thread, I apologise for the lack of credibility and the location of the link, but I couldn't find a better source. I have no reason to think the Man U fan made it up :

 

http://www.joinmust.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24381

 

Newcastle United tops ICC's Credit Premier League with Top Score

Mar 21 2006

Creditman - UK

 

ICC Credit, one of the UK’s leading credit reference agencies, reports that unlike its current position in the Premier League, it isn’t Chelsea that is riding high in ICC Credit’s Risk Score League. ‘The Champion’ is Newcastle United who beat all other top premiership clubs.

 

Newcastle currently heads the ICC Credit Risk Score League with a score of 88, with Manchester United a close second with a score of 87. Reflecting the current state of play in the Premier League, Blackburn Rovers and Bolton sit next with scores of 84 and 81 respectively. Interestingly, Chelsea has a lower credit score of 78.

 

ICC Credit’s Risk Score is a predictor of whether a company is credit worthy, or not. The Score is used to predict whether a company will fail within the next 12 months (and therefore not able to pay its debts) and takes into account variables such as financial, demographic and trading criteria.

 

I guess a lot must have changed in a year.

 

The idea that we were days away from administration before Ashley came along and saved us (Ashley himself being the biggest proponent of this myth) is about as ridiculous as the idea of Ashley putting the club into administration now.

 

Afternoon UV – back for some more then   

 

The problem with an insolvent balance sheet is that the auditors will only sign the company off as a going concern if there is proof that the company can meet its debts as they fall due for the next 12 months. In the case of most football clubs that are insolvent this is provided by the owner with a written undertaking of financial support. At 30th June 2007 Ashley, who bought the club in the following month, was able to give that undertaking – but who would have done it if he hadn’t bought the club? Do not underestimate this because if the auditors were not satisfied on this point they would put a going concern qualification in the audit report. And if they did that then all secured creditors would have the right to foreclose.

   

Let us look at a simple financial history for the 4 years leading up to the time of the takeover:

 

 

                                      2003/2004      2004/2005        2005/2006                2006/2007

Profit/Loss          Profit  £4.4 million     Breakeven      Loss £12 million      Loss £33 million

 

Net Worth                  £29 million     £29 million      £17 million        Negative £16 million

 

Wages/Turnover                50%              58%                   62%                        71%

 

 

 

There is a clear pattern of decline here and begs the question as to what was going to change to stop it. Why would the management team that started this trend be able to reverse it? And if additional funding were required what bank would offer it given the clear downward financial trend plus the fact that all assets and sources of revenue were already tied up as collateral on existing loan agreements?

 

The operating loss figure you quote for 2006/2007 is pretty irrelevant because ignoring player trading and amortisation is like a builder ignoring cost of materials. The operating loss also excludes interest costs which adds to its irrelevance given that the club was funded entirely by debt. 

 

Turning to your assumption on the cash flow I haven’t looked at it recently so I’ll take your word for it that the club shipped £10 million in 2006/2007. You conclude that in the following year this would be made up by the increase in TV revenue – in fact overall revenue increased by £12 million so prima facie your assumption is supported by the figures. However this would only give a breakeven cash situation if costs were held at about the same level and nothing was invested in the squad. As we now know Allardyce set about reshaping the squad and we ended up with the likes of Geremi, Smith, Cacapa, Viduka and Barton all earning huge wedge and contributing not very much, plus Allardyce’s army of backroom staff  – result = wages increase by £12 million year on year. He also invested money in the squad iirc. Did we not have a net spend of around £5-10 million that summer? You seem to believe that none of this would have happened if the previous board and not Ashley had been in charge of Allardyce. As Shepherd and co recruited Allardyce and gave him carte blanche to restructure the club I don’t believe that.

 

The issue of the stadium is not in doubt. This was an excellent decision and left the club with an outstanding facility and without doubt it created extra revenue. But you have a warped view of debt. There is nothing wrong with debt, most businesses need it and football clubs especially so. But there has to someone around who is going to provide it. I have said earlier on here our problem was that we were in the hands of external creditors who charged large interest rates and to whom the transaction was nothing other than a commercial arrangement with foreclosure clauses. When Ashley took over the debt it was at least owed to the man who owned the club who had (hopefully) a vested interest in the club remaining in business and would not foreclose. You mention Blackburn Rovers. As far as I know their debt is owed to the trust of Jack Walker, which owns the club. They are therefore in the situation I have just described.  The only limit on the amount clubs like this can borrow is what the owners are prepared to make available - and that was not the case with us pre Ashley

 

I have no reason to doubt your reference to the ICC’s credit Premier League but it was dated March 2006 when the latest available results would have been 2004/2005 and the club was looking ok. Your comment that “a lot must have changed in a year” is pretty much on the money. In fact it happened over the next two years and the club lost £45 million in that period. 

 

I have put forward the suggestion on here before that Shepherd may have been deluded about the club's finances. I read a recent interview with him where he said that every year he was in charge "we made a profit". So how does he explain departing from the club with £92 million of losses sitting in the balance sheet? Maybe the "we" he is referring to is himself, his family and the Halls....I do think he may have had an inflated view of the status and financial clout of the club and thought he could wagon his way through any situation. But in the world of finance chickens invariably come home to roost, as we've seen in many business sectors during the last 12 months or so.         

 

I don’t know if anyone has said the club was days away from Administration pre Ashley, I seem to remember Mort saying something about it being like a house of cards. All I have ever done is express my view on the clubs finances pre Ashley, and provide evidence from published and audited information to explain why I think that. If you really want to carry on trying to convince people that there was no financial problem pre Ashley then please do so. But you won't alter my opinion.