quayside Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 wow, i'm amazed at that tbh especially as we've not been paying uncle mike interest on it...imagine if it'd still been owed to the banks these last few years A huge chunk of that figure is from the early repayment of the stadium expansion loan which was required when the club changed ownership. A "huge chunk" ?? around £40 Million is all Wasnt it closer to £70m? Ashley had to cough up £70 million shortly after he bought us but not all of that was stadium debt, some of it was simply working capital debt that allowed the club to pay its way. I haven't got any info to hand but Toon Pack's figure of £40 million for the stadium debt sounds good. £40 Mill was the mortgage (might have been £45, but certainly no more) the other £30 mill was other loans/overdraft that had to be paid, there was also £27Mill owed on transfers. If he'd done proper due dilligence he'd have run a mile, just like the other prospective buyers did the year before. And of course Barclays wasted no time in calling the whole lot in at the first opportunity. I wonder why? Dread to think what'd have happened if they'd done it when we didn't have a thick billionaire owner !! The importance and high profile of the club, not only locally but also as a well established Premiership football club, meant they couldn't really. And as the old saying goes - owe the bank £70 and its your problem but owe the bank £70 million and it's the bank's problem. And Ashley buying the club lifted all that. Some one quite senior in the credit department at Barclays probably thought all their Christmases had come at once.....And the Shepherd and Hall families also have cause to be grateful to the thick billionaire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/06/09/newcastle-united-s-return-to-premier-league-is-good-for-top-flight-61634-28847135/2/#ixzz1OlgtCBHi The report claims that Newcastle United has debts totalling £288m with the club owing Mike Ashley around £133m. It is believed that the huge cash sum is owed to a top level company – known as St James Holdings Ltd – whose main focus is investment in the club. That's yet another case of the press (local in this case) picking up random numbers and putting dubious interpretations on them. St James Holdings is 100% owned and funded by Mike Ashley. He used the company to buy the club for £138 million and also to loan the club a further £150 million making £288 million in total. The club does not owe Ashley for what he paid for it but it does owe him for the money he loaned. So the club does not have debt of £288 million, the figure is £150 million. we still have 150,000,000 debt? f***ing hell man £115,000,000 actually. £119,600,000 surely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 wow, i'm amazed at that tbh especially as we've not been paying uncle mike interest on it...imagine if it'd still been owed to the banks these last few years A huge chunk of that figure is from the early repayment of the stadium expansion loan which was required when the club changed ownership. A "huge chunk" ?? around £40 Million is all Wasnt it closer to £70m? Ashley had to cough up £70 million shortly after he bought us but not all of that was stadium debt, some of it was simply working capital debt that allowed the club to pay its way. I haven't got any info to hand but Toon Pack's figure of £40 million for the stadium debt sounds good. £45 Mill was the mortgage (ssorry got mixed up) the other £30 mill was other loans/overdraft that had to be paid, there was also £27Mill owed on transfers. If he'd done proper due dilligence he'd have run a mile, just like the other prospective buyers did the year before. Sorry yeah i was adding the loans rather than mortgage/other loans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14825620.stm Uefa plans tough action on financial fair play Page last updated at 14:07 GMT, Wednesday, 7 September 2011 15:07 UK By Matt Slater Uefa will withhold prize money and issue transfer bans on clubs failing to meet the new financial fair play rules. The ultimate sanction remains a ban from European competition but Uefa told the European Club Association (ECA) it wanted other penalties at its disposal. "It's good Uefa are thinking penalties that fit the crime better than the usual sporting sanctions," Inter Milan chief executive Ernesto Paolillo said. "This will give the push that some clubs need." "Football clubs understand rules, it's what we're used to, so we wanted to hear more about the penalties," Paolillo added. Continue reading the main story Alarmed about the amount of debt carried by Europe's leading clubs, and the fact that only 20% of them turn a profit, Uefa president Michel Platini is determined to encourage a more sustainable business model. The rules, designed to ensure clubs live within their means over a rolling three-year period, do not come into full effect until the 2013-14 season but this campaign is the first that "counts" towards the initial assessment by the governing body's FFP panel. That panel is headed by the former Prime Minister of Belgium Jean-Luc Dehaene, who spoke exclusively to the BBC last month about his hopes for the new system. Andrea Traverso is the most senior Uefa official involved in the implementation of FFP and it was he who came to the ECA's general assembly in Geneva on Monday to outline the range of possible sanctions. ECA chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge said the organisation's 201 members fully support the initiative and look forward to working out any kinks during the "soft implementation" stage of the next two years. "Always buying, buying, buying isn't rational," added Rummenigge, who is also chief executive of Bundesliga giants Bayern Munich. "We unanimously signed up to FFP in 2009 and we are ready for it now. The ECA will help clubs meet the criteria, it's an obligation." As so often in football, the fixture list has thrown up an intriguing Champions League contest between Rummenigge's Bayern and Manchester City, the free-spending Premier League team that has provoked so much FFP-related debate. City have been transformed in the three years since they were bought by Abu Dhabi royalty and many observers have wondered how their lavish spending could possibly meet Uefa's new criteria for balanced books. Even Rummenigge said last season that it seemed unlikely a club that was losing £120m-plus a year could comply with FFP unless they had "a trick up their sleeves". So when City announced a greatly improved sponsorship deal with Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways in July - a shirt and stadium naming rights package worth in the region of £350m over 10 years - it seemed they had found this "trick". But City's Etihad deal has attracted considerable comment from some of the club's Premier League rivals, particularly Arsenal and Liverpool, both of whom are fellow ECA members. Rummenigge, however, refused to be drawn on the issue in Geneva on Tuesday, saying only that links between the clubs were healthy following the sale of Jerome Boateng to the German team this summer and "it was not up to us" to decide on the fairness of any other club's commercial deals. Bayern host City at their Allianz Arena on 27 September. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 zzzzzzzzz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I see no reason why can't be near the top of the Premier's financial table and, by golly, that is something to be proud of. Thanks to the Carroll money we'll probably be second to only Arsenal. The clubs net profit and PPW (that's "Pound Per Win" for you financial table n00bs) will be something to be admired! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 zzzzzzzzz Quite. What could be tougher than, er, withholding some prize money? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Payments To Agents - 2010/11 Total amount paid to agents in the period 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011: 6,380,488. Explanatory Note: The amount shown is the aggregate of all payments made to agents during the reporting period for agency activity, including payments made by the club on behalf of players. http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20111130/payments-to-agents-201011_2281670_2533340 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Fifth highest, which is reasonably surprising all things considered. Still some way short of what they'd have us believe in the summer mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Fifth highest, which is reasonably surprising all things considered. Still some way short of what they'd have us believe in the summer mind. not really surprising with the Ba and Marveaux deal no doubt taking up the majority of that money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcjmc Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Fifth highest, which is reasonably surprising all things considered. Still some way short of what they'd have us believe in the summer mind. not that i want to pretend to know what iam talking about but will the players themselves get similar payments as sighing on fees? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Yeh , I would imagine without signing Marveux and Ba, we would be near the bottom of the list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 £6m for Ba is good business, let's just look at it that way It's just cost Sunderland the same figure to get of Bruce. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Fifth highest, which is reasonably surprising all things considered. Still some way short of what they'd have us believe in the summer mind. hows it surprising. didn't bartons reps say they expected more as he was a 10mill quality player for no transfer fee or something similar ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Fifth highest, which is reasonably surprising all things considered. Still some way short of what they'd have us believe in the summer mind. hows it surprising. didn't bartons reps say they expected more as he was a 10mill quality player for no transfer fee or something similar ? I thought more clubs would have spent more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Fifth highest, which is reasonably surprising all things considered. Still some way short of what they'd have us believe in the summer mind. hows it surprising. didn't bartons reps say they expected more as he was a 10mill quality player for no transfer fee or something similar ? I thought more clubs would have spent more. our incomings were in exactly the bracket where agents think they can make a killing, like in the example of barton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Fifth highest, which is reasonably surprising all things considered. Still some way short of what they'd have us believe in the summer mind. hows it surprising. didn't bartons reps say they expected more as he was a 10mill quality player for no transfer fee or something similar ? I thought more clubs would have spent more. our incomings were in exactly the bracket where agents think they can make a killing, like in the example of barton. It'll include fees for new contracts agreed too I'd imagine and we've done a bit of that in the last 12 months Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Chelsea's latest dodge: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/chelsea-might-found-financial-fair-play-workaround-035229723--sow.html http://www.givemefootball.com/premier-league/chelsea-start-to-answer-financial-fair-play-questi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morpeth mag Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Somebody will be investigating all the money we get from Sports Direct next. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Chelsea's latest dodge: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/chelsea-might-found-financial-fair-play-workaround-035229723--sow.html http://www.givemefootball.com/premier-league/chelsea-start-to-answer-financial-fair-play-questi And in a move that could keep any UEFA sticklers from getting too nosey about anything, Gazprom last week announced "an agreement with UEFA to become an official partner of the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Super Cup for the next three seasons," according to Chelsea's official website. Nothing like good ole' bribery Although, to be frank, there doesn't seem to be that a direct relationship between Roman and Gazprom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Gazprom are pretty much all but state run and Abromovich is well in with the russian aristocracy / establishment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 not sure if this is the right thread or if this has already been reported but just come across it http://www.themag.co.uk/the-mag-wire/newcastle-united-shirt-deal-increases-by-300/ It has just been revealed that Newcastle United’s latest shirt deal with Virgin Money actually went up by 300% compared to the previous agreement, increasing from the £2.5m a year Northern Rock contract to £10m a year with Virgin. The latest figures show Newcastle only behind the likes of Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool on £20m per year, plus Chelsea who bring in £13.8m. Spurs also have a £10m per year shirt agreement but also profit from a separate £5m deal for Cup matches, while Manchester United now profit from a ground breaking £10m training kit deal. The strangest deal is our friends down the road who when they launched their ‘Invest In Africa’ deal recently, declared it to be a, “…ground breaking not for profit initiative”, but which is now revealed to be capable of reaching a massive £20m if various targets are met. I think that Champions League, Premier League, FA Cup treble is a shade unlikely…. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Gazprom are pretty much all but state run and Abromovich is well in with the russian aristocracy / establishment. Yeah, but there's a difference between an owner bankrolling a club - which is what FFP is meant to stop - and an owner using his connections to get a good deal, which is what all owners do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 not sure if this is the right thread or if this has already been reported but just come across it http://www.themag.co.uk/the-mag-wire/newcastle-united-shirt-deal-increases-by-300/ It has just been revealed that Newcastle United’s latest shirt deal with Virgin Money actually went up by 300% compared to the previous agreement, increasing from the £2.5m a year Northern Rock contract to £10m a year with Virgin. The latest figures show Newcastle only behind the likes of Manchester City, Manchester United and Liverpool on £20m per year, plus Chelsea who bring in £13.8m. Spurs also have a £10m per year shirt agreement but also profit from a separate £5m deal for Cup matches, while Manchester United now profit from a ground breaking £10m training kit deal. The strangest deal is our friends down the road who when they launched their ‘Invest In Africa’ deal recently, declared it to be a, “…ground breaking not for profit initiative”, but which is now revealed to be capable of reaching a massive £20m if various targets are met. I think that Champions League, Premier League, FA Cup treble is a shade unlikely…. Good stuff, world of difference from when freddy spent all of the clubs money from NR up front on Michael Owen :gm's patter: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2261817/Arsenal-Manchester-United-financial-fair-play-plot-ruin-Premier-League--Martin-Samuel.html?ITO=socialnet-twitter-newcastlemail&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=socialnet-twitter-newcastlemail&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed while I dislike linking a Martin Samuel piece theres a bit in here about the prems FFP idea and who's behind it thats interesting, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are the brains behind making the prem clubs comply with UEFA's FFP rules (all clubs must at least break even, no owner investment on a significant level) which is an obvious move to remove City and Chelsea from the equation. Not sure how I feel about it since it will likely mean that all CL clubs have a ridiculous and permanent advantage 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