nufc losing £500,000 a week

[Liam Liam Liam O]

“Newcastle United couldn’t survive at the moment without Mike’s money, it’s as simple as that."

 

This is remarkably similar to a statement made in December when 'a source' said “Without Mike's input, the club would be broke. Simple as that." which I wrote about here and commented was like saying Josef Fritzl deserved credit for supporting Elizabeth Fritzl all her life.

 

"If Mike and the banks weren't willing to cover the cost of relegation Newcastle may well be in a Portsmouth situation"

 

He's given no impression whatsoever that he's "willing" to do any such thing. Like a rat on a sinking ship (the rat that gnawed through the hull) he's had the club on the market during almost every transfer window he's been at the club (or has claimed to have it on the market). He's often referred to his desire to cut his losses and sell up. He's been forced to cover the cost of his own mistake and nothing more. This is no act of altruism we're seeing. It's pure business. He knows this club is worth more than the current value he's dragged us down to....and a great deal more than Portsmouth who are a far smaller club with an average gate less than half the size of ours even in the league above.

 

It's probably just a re-print in a new article of the same conversation from December.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping cunt'.

 

Something along those lines.

[Happy Face]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping cunt'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Totally agree with that.

[OzzieMandias]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping cunt'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

[Happy Face]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping cunt'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m.

[Benwell Lad]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

You still think an NUST takeover is a viable and preferable option to the present regime ?

Or have they been misleading the fans and media too ?

[Guest Roger Kint]

Groundhog Day!!!!!

[quayside]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

[Happy Face]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

You still think an NUST takeover is a viable and preferable option to the present regime ?

Or have they been misleading the fans and media too ?

 

I've never thought an NUST takeover was viable.

[Happy Face]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

 

I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m".

 

The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt.

 

The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt.

 

Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along.

 

The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts...

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

[quayside]

Groundhog Day!!!!!

 

It really is.

And one of the largest audit firms in the world is actively working with Ashley so that the accounts fully support his PR propaganda......

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed Uniteds debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

 

I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m".

 

The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt.

 

The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt.

 

Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along.

 

The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts...

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

Overdraft, Payroll taxes, amounts due on transfer fees, amounts owed to other creidtors for eg food offset by amounts owed to the club - money due from transfers, television money etc.

 

The £22.6 million does not mean that the club had any further loans other than that to Ashley

[Happy Face]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

 

I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m".

 

The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt.

 

The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt.

 

Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along.

 

The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts...

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

Overdraft, Payroll taxes, amounts due on transfer fees, amounts owed to other creidtors for eg food offset by amounts owed to the club - money due from transfers, television money etc.

 

The £22.6 million does not mean that the club had any further loans other than that to Ashley

 

I don't get your point.

 

I'm not arguing about the costs of anything or what the debt position was or might be.  People are saying Ashley plays with a straight bat on finances and I'm pointing out he's as inconsistent on finances as he is on any other subjectc.  In May 2008 he claimed we had no debt whatsoever and by September we'd only partially reduced it and had millions outstanding on transfers.

 

Clearly Keegan's departure had an impact on how he wanted to portray the situation.

 

EDIT:  Not to mention we were all FAR more likely to buy 3 year season tickets if we thought it was going to be spent on new players rather than old ones.

[johnnypd]

losing 500k a week is pretty positive tbh and doesnt work out to that big a loss over the entire year. couldve been much, much worse. simply getting promotion, and the extra cash gained (along with boosted crowds, sponsorhip, hospitality), would make up those losses. no excuses now.

[quayside]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed Uniteds debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

 

I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m".

 

The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt.

 

The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt.

 

Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along.

 

The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts...

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

So it hasn't occurred to you that a business making losses needs funding as it goes along. The £100 million did clear the external debt at that time but as the club lost more money further funds were needed to bale it out.

 

And the article quite clearly states that the figure of £22.6m is the net current liabilities. Ashley's loan does not form part of that figure because he was not going to call it in within a period of 12 months.

 

I fully understand that not everyone understands this stuff but drawing sweeping conclusions based on minimal knowledge is a shyte idea tbh.

[OzzieMandias]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

 

I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m".

 

The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt.

 

The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt.

 

Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along.

 

The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts...

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

Overdraft, Payroll taxes, amounts due on transfer fees, amounts owed to other creidtors for eg food offset by amounts owed to the club - money due from transfers, television money etc.

 

The £22.6 million does not mean that the club had any further loans other than that to Ashley

 

I don't get your point.

 

I'm not arguing about the costs of anything or what the debt position was or might be.  People are saying Ashley plays with a straight bat on finances and I'm pointing out he's as inconsistent on finances as he is on any other subjectc.  In May 2008 he claimed we had no debt whatsoever and by September we'd only partially reduced it and had millions outstanding on transfers.

 

Clearly Keegan's departure had an impact on how he wanted to portray the situation.

 

EDIT:  Not to mention we were all FAR more likely to buy 3 year season tickets if we thought it was going to be spent on new players rather than old ones.

 

And quayside has essentially just pointed out that the problem is not that "Ashley is inconsistent on finances" but that you simply don't understand them.

[Happy Face]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

 

I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m".

 

The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt.

 

The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt.

 

Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along.

 

The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts...

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

So it hasn't occurred to you that a business making losses needs funding as it goes along. The £100 million did clear the external debt at that time but as the club lost more money further funds were needed to bale it out.

 

And the article quite clearly states that the figure of £22.6m is the net current liabilities. Ashley's loan does not form part of that figure because he was not going to call it in within a period of 12 months.

 

I fully understand that not everyone understands this stuff but drawing sweeping conclusions based on minimal knowledge is a shyte idea tbh.

 

I appreciate that and I'm grateful to people like you who point out mistakes of a lay person like me. 

 

It had occured to me that more than £10m of further debt could have accrued in the 4 months between the statements, but even if it had, I thought the point stood.  Wouldn't you agree the claim that we were debt free in May 2008 was a season ticket pushing distortion of the facts at best, just on the basis of the outstanding transfer liabilities they knew existed and later used as evidence of crushing debt?

[quayside]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed Uniteds debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

 

I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m".

 

The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt.

 

The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt.

 

Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along.

 

The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts...

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

So it hasn't occurred to you that a business making losses needs funding as it goes along. The £100 million did clear the external debt at that time but as the club lost more money further funds were needed to bale it out.

 

And the article quite clearly states that the figure of £22.6m is the net current liabilities. Ashley's loan does not form part of that figure because he was not going to call it in within a period of 12 months.

 

I fully understand that not everyone understands this stuff but drawing sweeping conclusions based on minimal knowledge is a shyte idea tbh.

 

I appreciate that and I'm grateful to people like you who point out mistakes of a lay person like me.  But wouldn't you agree the claim that we were debt free in May 2008 was a season ticket pushing distortion of the facts at best, just on the basis of the outstanding transfer liabilities they knew existed and later used as evidence of crushing debt?

 

Again it's a case of derfinitions. Generally when you talk about a company's debt you are referring to its major external long term funding. The day to day liabilities that are incurred on running the business aren't included. Everyone knew Ashley paid off the external debt, it was in the 2007 accounts and widely reported in the press. He had to pay most of it off because there was a change of ownership clause in the loan agreements and not having done any due diligence he was unaware of this when he bought the club.

 

The statement you refer to is clearly aimed at making the point that the club was not in the hands of external lenders who could foreclose. And if it's true (as is widely rumoured) that he was prepared to sell the club and write that debt off then the statement has  even wider implications.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed Uniteds debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

 

I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m".

 

The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt.

 

The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt.

 

Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along.

 

The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts...

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

So it hasn't occurred to you that a business making losses needs funding as it goes along. The £100 million did clear the external debt at that time but as the club lost more money further funds were needed to bale it out.

 

And the article quite clearly states that the figure of £22.6m is the net current liabilities. Ashley's loan does not form part of that figure because he was not going to call it in within a period of 12 months.

 

I fully understand that not everyone understands this stuff but drawing sweeping conclusions based on minimal knowledge is a shyte idea tbh.

 

I appreciate that and I'm grateful to people like you who point out mistakes of a lay person like me. 

 

It had occured to me that more than £10m of further debt could have accrued in the 4 months between the statements, but even if it had, I thought the point stood.  Wouldn't you agree the claim that we were debt free in May 2008 was a season ticket pushing distortion of the facts at best, just on the basis of the outstanding transfer liabilities they knew existed and later used as evidence of crushing debt?

 

It may be that because I'm an accountant I define debt differently than other people, but to me debt should be seen as required repayments on things such as loans and things bought on tick (lets say player transfers for a football club).

 

Every month a club will have outstanding payments for regular purchases and things like VAT/PAYE/NI, these will be paid every month but there is a lag between then cost being incurred and the payment being made - like if you buy on a credit card. If you pay your credit card bill off in full every month then to me it is not debt, its only when you let it build up that it becomes debt. Similarly if you pay off your creditors each month then its not debt.

 

Remember the accounts show the position as a snapshot at a given point in time, go forward one week and all of these payments may have been made. Hence, I don't think that there is an inconsistency in being debt free in September and having current liabilities of £23m in June or whenever

[Guest bobthemag]

And spent all of the sponsorship money.

 

..on Mickey O.

 

...on unashamedly paying himself a huge amount of money for a warehouse.

 

which would have been better spent on players

 

 

[Guest rosstoon]

At the end of the day whether or not you like Mike Ashley we need to shut up with the Anti Ashley songs whilst he is funding the running of the club. I would hate us to go into Administration and the longer we are vocally anti Ashley the more likely he is to pull his money and send the club into Admin.

[STM]

I'm sure the sale of Given and Milner will cover the money he is having to spend. Perhaps if he hadn't made a pig's ear of running the club we would be in a better financial situation.

 

Sounds like the bloke who says, "what about all the times i haven't cheated , sweetheart".

[Happy Face]

The high wage bill is partly due to having a number of players who we couldn't shift, and a lot of players without relegation wage reduction clauses in their contracts. Neither of these is really Ashley's fault, all the fact of relegation probably was.

 

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

 

Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season.

 

I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'.

 

Something along those lines.

 

The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks".

 

The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then.  Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

 

On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true.

 

Really?

 

Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop.

 

"This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared"

 

"I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

 

"Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned"

 

Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m.

 

Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing.

 

The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage.

 

And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from 

 

Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008."

 

I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m".

 

The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt.

 

The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt.

 

Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along.

 

The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts...

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

So it hasn't occurred to you that a business making losses needs funding as it goes along. The £100 million did clear the external debt at that time but as the club lost more money further funds were needed to bale it out.

 

And the article quite clearly states that the figure of £22.6m is the net current liabilities. Ashley's loan does not form part of that figure because he was not going to call it in within a period of 12 months.

 

I fully understand that not everyone understands this stuff but drawing sweeping conclusions based on minimal knowledge is a shyte idea tbh.

 

I appreciate that and I'm grateful to people like you who point out mistakes of a lay person like me.  But wouldn't you agree the claim that we were debt free in May 2008 was a season ticket pushing distortion of the facts at best, just on the basis of the outstanding transfer liabilities they knew existed and later used as evidence of crushing debt?

 

Again it's a case of derfinitions. Generally when you talk about a company's debt you are referring to its major external long term funding. The day to day liabilities that are incurred on running the business aren't included. Everyone knew Ashley paid off the external debt, it was in the 2007 accounts and widely reported in the press. He had to pay most of it off because there was a change of ownership clause in the loan agreements and not having done any due diligence he was unaware of this when he bought the club.

 

The statement you refer to is clearly aimed at making the point that the club was not in the hands of external lenders who could foreclose. And if it's true (as is widely rumoured) that he was prepared to sell the club and write that debt off then the statement has  even wider implications.

 

Well I don't buy that either.

 

The way I see it he's talking to papers sold to non-accountants like me.  When he says...

 

"The debt has now been cleared" it translates to "Go and buy season tickets, it'll all get spent on players"

 

and then 4 months later when he says he didn't really.....

 

"pay off the debt, just reduced it."  it translates to "I can't afford to buy any players, I've saved the club"

 

The cycle of promises and execuses repeats consistently around transfer window time.

 

In December he was all about putting in a bit of money having stabilised the club, supporting Hughton and ensuring promotion, but now he's losing £2m every month and we're the next Portsmouth.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I'm sure the sale of Given and Milner will cover the money he is having to spend. Perhaps if he hadn't made a pig's ear of running the club we would be in a better financial situation.

 

Sounds like the bloke who says, "what about all the times i haven't cheated , sweetheart".

 

From what I can deduce from whats been said/gone on at the club Ashley has come in to a failing business (his fault for not doing due diligence) and has had to make some pretty hard hitting decisions in order to put it back on its feet. People who do this are never popular (just look at whats gone on at the Royal Mail and British Airways), but sometimes it is necessary.

 

Yes he has made some huge mistakes - the treatment of KK being the obvious one, but most of the decisions have come from a need to change and not through malice. Bad choices are not necessarly wicked choices.

 

In some ways it is a shame that Ashley will never see if his decisions have worked for the long term, and in some ways getting a new owner in who will have to implement more changes could do more short term damage than good at present