JH Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Hot off the press: http://i55.tinypic.com/293btap.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Worth bearing in mind all this free exposure when people pipe up about the 'debt' owed by the club to Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I have unobstructed view of SJP from city centre office. I haven't seen any building type activity taking place yet this summer, but my view is from behind the east stand looking at the milburn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I don't see what the big deal is. It's moving money from one pocket to another. Tell me why it matters whether he pays for the advertising given that he owns 100% of the club. Would people feel better if he parked some of his personal cash in the club and at the end of the year our books shows '£50m cash'? It'd mean fuck all though, given that he could just withdraw it at any moment. And it's the same with this advertising. He owns Sports Direct so they benefit from the advertising, and since SD is valued much more than NUFC, it makes business sense to try to increase the share price of SD. NUFC isn't traded on the stock market so its books mean fuck all. He could easily shift more money into the club but what would be the sense in that if he isn't planning on spending it on transfers/wages? At the same time, he could easily shift money out of the club but again, there's no sense in that other than tax reasons, which is perfectly legal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I don't see what the big deal is. It's moving money from one pocket to another. Tell me why it matters whether he pays for the advertising given that he owns 100% of the club. It looks shite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Worth bearing in mind all this free exposure when people pipe up about the 'debt' owed by the club to Ashley. This statement is meaningless. The club doesn't owe Ashley anything. The debt is on paper. It's simply a number on an account. He could wipe it the next minute and bring it back 5 minutes later. It's non-existent. If he doesn't wipe the debt when the club is sold, then whoever buys it from him will pay the value of the club minus the debt that is there on paper because the debt will have to be repaid (x = value of the club - debt). If he wipes it, then whoever buys it will pay the value of the club (x = value of the club). In the end, whoever buys it will pay the same amount, and Ashley will also receive the same amount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I don't see what the big deal is. It's moving money from one pocket to another. Tell me why it matters whether he pays for the advertising given that he owns 100% of the club. It looks shite. What, exactly, looks shite? The advertising? If that's what you're suggesting then doesn't really answer the fucking question, does it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I don't see what the big deal is. It's moving money from one pocket to another. Tell me why it matters whether he pays for the advertising given that he owns 100% of the club. Would people feel better if he parked some of his personal cash in the club and at the end of the year our books shows '£50m cash'? It'd mean f*** all though, given that he could just withdraw it at any moment. And it's the same with this advertising. He owns Sports Direct so they benefit from the advertising, and since SD is valued much more than NUFC, it makes business sense to try to increase the share price of SD. NUFC isn't traded on the stock market so its books mean f*** all. He could easily shift more money into the club but what would be the sense in that if he isn't planning on spending it on transfers/wages? At the same time, he could easily shift money out of the club but again, there's no sense in that other than tax reasons, which is perfectly legal. People are using income from the advertising as a justification for having it splashed all over the place. Also, it's moving money out of the club which I support, I don't support SD. While we're paying to advertise SD, we're using incoming transfer fees to pay other bills instead of re-investing that money back into the squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It's vast swathes of advertising space that could bring money into the club, instead of us paying to advertise his cheap tat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Hang on a sec, we are paying to put sports direct up on our own stadium? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Hang on a sec, we are paying to put sports direct up on our own stadium? Aye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I don't see what the big deal is. It's moving money from one pocket to another. Tell me why it matters whether he pays for the advertising given that he owns 100% of the club. It looks shite. What, exactly, looks shite? The advertising? If that's what you're suggesting then doesn't really answer the fucking question, does it? It's an eyesore. That's a good enough reason to not want it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Hang on a sec, we are paying to put sports direct up on our own stadium? Aye. fckin hell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It's vast swathes of advertising space that could bring money into the club, instead of us paying to advertise his cheap tat. But money into the club is his money. There is no difference between his money and the club's money. They're the same. He owns the club. If I take money out of my bank account and leave it in my car, am I less wealthy? No, because I own the car. But now if someone were to buy the car with the cash inside, I'd sell it for the value of the car + the cash. It's the same with this advertising thing, and it's the exact same thing with this debt. If I have a house that has £100k of your money inside and someone wants to buy it, I'd have to sell it for whatever it is worth - £100k (to pay you back), but if the money wasn't inside then I'd sell the house for whatever it is worth. In the end, I receive the same amount (value of house - £100k), and the guy who's buying it is paying the same (value of the house). In the first scenario, he pays £100k less but now owes you £100k. In the second scenario he just pays the value of the house. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Hang on a sec, we are paying to put sports direct up on our own stadium? Aye. You're not paying anything. This isn't rocket science, man. He's paying himself money to advertise his own shit. Money from left pocket moving to right pocket. There is no 'us', no 'we'. He owns the club; 100% of it. Whatever he pays to himself (or doesn't pay) is irrelevant to the sustainability of the club. And there is no 'our'. He owns the stadium as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 But money into the club is his money. There is no difference between his money and the club's money. They're the same. He owns the club. If I take money out of my bank account and leave it in my car, am I less wealthy? No, because I own the car. But now if someone were to buy the car with the cash inside, I'd sell it for the value of the car + the cash. It's the same with this advertising thing, and it's the exact same thing with this debt. If I have a house that has £100k of your money inside and someone wants to buy it, I'd have to sell it for whatever it is worth + the £100k (to pay you back), but if the money wasn't inside then I'd sell the house for whatever it is worth. In the end, I receive the same amount (value of house), and the guy who's buying it is paying the same (value of the house). In the first scenario, he pays an extra £100k but gets a £100k of cash inside the house. In the second scenario he just pays the value of the house. What has that got to do with us buying advertising from SD? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. "During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250." What year is this regarding? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 But money into the club is his money. There is no difference between his money and the club's money. They're the same. He owns the club. If I take money out of my bank account and leave it in my car, am I less wealthy? No, because I own the car. But now if someone were to buy the car with the cash inside, I'd sell it for the value of the car + the cash. It's the same with this advertising thing, and it's the exact same thing with this debt. If I have a house that has £100k of your money inside and someone wants to buy it, I'd have to sell it for whatever it is worth + the £100k (to pay you back), but if the money wasn't inside then I'd sell the house for whatever it is worth. In the end, I receive the same amount (value of house), and the guy who's buying it is paying the same (value of the house). In the first scenario, he pays an extra £100k but gets a £100k of cash inside the house. In the second scenario he just pays the value of the house. What has that got to do with us buying advertising from SD? That was a horrible example I've edited it so it makes more sense but I'm not sure if it makes perfect sense. It's an example to show that the debt thing is meaningless. Whoever buys the club will actually have to pay £xm. Whether that x is straight cash to Ashley or 50% cash and the rest as debt owed to Ashley that the club (and therefore the new owner) assumes when they buy the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 You're not paying anything. This isn't rocket science, man. He's paying himself money to advertise his own s***. Money from left pocket moving to right pocket. There is no 'us', no 'we'. He owns the club; 100% of it. Whatever he pays to himself (or doesn't pay) is irrelevant to the sustainability of the club. And there is no 'our'. He owns the stadium as well. This isn't rocket science either, fans pay money into a football club expecting it to be spent on the football club. Llambias keeps banging on about the money Ashley has invested in the club, he wouldn't have had to invest as much if we'd been paid the going rate for the advertising that we've paid for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 What year is this regarding? That was from the 2009 accounts, we've had another set published since but I can't remember seeing any mention of money in or out for the advertising in the latest set of accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 We must be losing a significant amount of potential revenue because the SD advertising around the stadium is so extensive. Are they just filling in the gaps because they cannot get any advertisers interested or are they not interested in trying to attract them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Why don't we just have 100% free Sports Direct advertising if it makes no difference financially then Pip? What a silly thing to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 That was a horrible example I've edited it so it makes more sense but I'm not sure if it makes perfect sense. It's an example to show that the debt thing is meaningless. Whoever buys the club will actually have to pay £xm. Whether that x is straight cash to Ashley or 50% cash and the rest as debt owed to Ashley that the club (and therefore the new owner) assumes when they buy the club. I understand what you're saying, it just isn't relevant to our day to day running and how we could put potential advertising income to good use now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Hang on a sec, we are paying to put sports direct up on our own stadium? Aye. You're not paying anything. This isn't rocket science, man. He's paying himself money to advertise his own s***. Money from left pocket moving to right pocket. There is no 'us', no 'we'. He owns the club; 100% of it. Whatever he pays to himself (or doesn't pay) is irrelevant to the sustainability of the club. And there is no 'our'. He owns the stadium as well. No, he doesn't own the stadium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 No, he doesn't own the stadium. He does, he doesn't own the land that it's built on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now