nufc losing £500,000 a week

[Happy Face]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

and transfer profit has to be spent exclusivly on transfers ? not to mention how much we still had to pay from when we signed some of those players.

 

Not at all.  I think we're wise to tighten our belts and watch that bottom line.

 

Just pointing out there seems to be a £90million difference in the wheeling and dealing at Villa and the toon over the last 2 years.  I'm sure i probably haven't understood the complicated accountancy though.

why only mention the last 2 yrs ? we were still paying for ttransfers from before then.

 

Cos that's when the gravy train ended and Ashley spat out his dummy.   

 

He came into the club, looked at the books and still spent £20million on new players and handed all of our very average players VERY expensive contracts.  Fully aware of upcoming payments that were outstanding and the lack of incoming cash.  He continued the policy of the previous owners. 

 

Milner's sale and Xisco's purchase a year after taking control marked a change in policy which I'm measuring with those numbers.

[Teasy]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

 

As everyone should know by now transfer fee's are almost always spread over many years.  We're talking about cash flow here.

 

Also our net spend is more like £29m profit.

[bealios]

Happy Face - Ashley was selling the club for £100million, with no ongoing loan etc. You mention this is based upon the words of self confessed liars, it isn't. It is true, whether you choose to believe it or not. In fact, the price very momentarily did drop to £80m (plus a few additional fees) before he decided to keep it for the season.

 

You do make a valid point though, if Ashley is so naive and bought such an expensive asset without proper work in advance, not knowing what he was doing, do we really want him running the club? The sensible answer has to be no, but at the moment I have no problem with him whatsoever remaining as owner, coming to and enjoying games etc. I just wish he would appoint someone half decent to run the club i.e. Rick Parry, David Dein.

 

 

[madras]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

and transfer profit has to be spent exclusivly on transfers ? not to mention how much we still had to pay from when we signed some of those players.

 

Not at all.  I think we're wise to tighten our belts and watch that bottom line.

 

Just pointing out there seems to be a £90million difference in the wheeling and dealing at Villa and the toon over the last 2 years.  I'm sure i probably haven't understood the complicated accountancy though.

why only mention the last 2 yrs ? we were still paying for ttransfers from before then.

 

Cos that's when the gravy train ended and Ashley spat out his dummy.   

 

He came into the club, looked at the books and still spent £20million on new players and handed all of our very average players VERY expensive contracts.  Fully aware of upcoming payments that were outstanding and the lack of incoming cash.  He continued the policy of the previous owners. 

 

Milner's sale and Xisco's purchase a year after taking control marked a change in policy which I'm measuring with those numbers.

he started off continuing the policy..looked at the books and reralised it couldn't go on.

[quayside]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

and transfer profit has to be spent exclusivly on transfers ? not to mention how much we still had to pay from when we signed some of those players.

 

Not at all.  I think we're wise to tighten our belts and watch that bottom line.

 

Just pointing out there seems to be a £90million difference in the wheeling and dealing at Villa and the toon over the last 2 years.  I'm sure i probably haven't understood the complicated accountancy though.

 

How much cash in total has Lerner invested in Aston Villa?

[BottledDog]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

and transfer profit has to be spent exclusivly on transfers ? not to mention how much we still had to pay from when we signed some of those players.

 

Not at all.  I think we're wise to tighten our belts and watch that bottom line.

 

Just pointing out there seems to be a £90million difference in the wheeling and dealing at Villa and the toon over the last 2 years.  I'm sure i probably haven't understood the complicated accountancy though.

 

How much cash in total has Lerner invested in Aston Villa?

 

No idea but he is making a few bob on the interest he is charging on his loans.

 

"Randy Lerner, who has lent the club £49.5m. These loans are repayable in full in December 2016. Villa paid £4.1m in interest in the year on Lerner's loan, on top of £1.37m to service the bank loan"

[Happy Face]

Happy Face - Ashley was selling the club for £100million, with no ongoing loan etc. You mention this is based upon the words of self confessed liars, it isn't. It is true, whether you choose to believe it or not. In fact, the price very momentarily did drop to £80m (plus a few additional fees) before he decided to keep it for the season.

 

 

How do you know it's true?

 

Why did it only momentarily drop to £80m for Barry Moat?  Why was that opportunity not afforded to the several other interested parties sniffing around?

[OzzieMandias]

Happy Face - Ashley was selling the club for £100million, with no ongoing loan etc. You mention this is based upon the words of self confessed liars, it isn't. It is true, whether you choose to believe it or not. In fact, the price very momentarily did drop to £80m (plus a few additional fees) before he decided to keep it for the season.

 

 

How do you know it's true?

 

Why did it only momentarily drop to £80m for Barry Moat?  Why was that opportunity not afforded to the several other interested parties sniffing around?

 

The £20 million difference was obviously the amount that either Ashley or Moat was immediately going to have to put into the club to cover outgoings. I don't believe there were any other "interested parties sniffing around" at that very late stage in the negotiations.

[quayside]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

and transfer profit has to be spent exclusivly on transfers ? not to mention how much we still had to pay from when we signed some of those players.

 

Not at all.  I think we're wise to tighten our belts and watch that bottom line.

 

Just pointing out there seems to be a £90million difference in the wheeling and dealing at Villa and the toon over the last 2 years.  I'm sure i probably haven't understood the complicated accountancy though.

 

How much cash in total has Lerner invested in Aston Villa?

 

No idea but he is making a few bob on the interest he is charging on his loans.

 

"Randy Lerner, who has lent the club £49.5m. These loans are repayable in full in December 2016. Villa paid £4.1m in interest in the year on Lerner's loan, on top of £1.37m to service the bank loan"

 

I've just had a look at Villa's finances, which are 2008 like our latest filed accounts.

 

As at November 2008 Lerner had paid £66 million for the club and invested a further £162 million in a mix of equity and loan. So that's a total of £228 million.

 

Whereas Ashley's investment had cost him £244 million up to October 2008.

 

The fundamental difference of course is that Lerner has been able to stick a large amount of his cash into buying players whereas virtually all of Ashley's money went on funding debts, trading losses and stopping it going bust. And, unlike Ashley, Lerner did not pay over the odds for an insolvent club.

[bealios]

I can't really say on an internet message board how I know, and to be honest it doesn't bother me that much if you or anyone else believes it or not, but it is true.

 

It dropped momentarily to £80m, but I'm not saying it was just BM, I'm sure if somebody else turned up in that week with £80m deposited in Ashley's solicitors account he would have sold to them immediately. The reason it dropped was that £80m cash in the bank is better than negotiating for weeks without success on a £100m deal. It was the watershed moment - nobody seemed able to raise funds to pay £100m, and it was a quick move to see if anyone really had the cash. Clearly they didn't, and Ashley most likely decided that there was no point trying to sell a Championship club if noone was prepared to even pay £80m, might as well wait a year and sell a Premier League club.

 

I think Ozzie is probably right - the £80m would have meant that Ashley didn't have to put in the immediate £20m working capital, so if he sold he would have been £100m better off than 1 month later.

 

The only other party around at the time was Silius' lot, and nobody really believed they were serious. Plenty of people making offers and gaining publicity - not one person came up with the cash.

 

 

 

 

[quayside]

I can't really say on an internet message board how I know, and to be honest it doesn't bother me that much if you or anyone else believes it or not, but it is true.

 

It dropped momentarily to £80m, but I'm not saying it was just BM, I'm sure if somebody else turned up in that week with £80m deposited in Ashley's solicitors account he would have sold to them immediately. The reason it dropped was that £80m cash in the bank is better than negotiating for weeks without success on a £100m deal. It was the watershed moment - nobody seemed able to raise funds to pay £100m, and it was a quick move to see if anyone really had the cash. Clearly they didn't, and Ashley most likely decided that there was no point trying to sell a Championship club if noone was prepared to even pay £80m, might as well wait a year and sell a Premier League club.

 

I think Ozzie is probably right - the £80m would have meant that Ashley didn't have to put in the immediate £20m working capital, so if he sold he would have been £100m better off than 1 month later.

 

The only other party around at the time was Silius' lot, and nobody really believed they were serious. Plenty of people making offers and gaining publicity - not one person came up with the cash.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No reason to disbelieve that, apart from anything else it tallies with what Caulkin was saying, and he seems to be one of the more ITK journalists. It would mean that Ashley was prepared to take a hit of about £160 million to get rid.

[Cronky]

Happy Face - Ashley was selling the club for £100million, with no ongoing loan etc. You mention this is based upon the words of self confessed liars, it isn't. It is true, whether you choose to believe it or not. In fact, the price very momentarily did drop to £80m (plus a few additional fees) before he decided to keep it for the season.

 

 

How do you know it's true?

 

Why did it only momentarily drop to £80m for Barry Moat?  Why was that opportunity not afforded to the several other interested parties sniffing around?

 

As nobody has said that they offered £100 million or £80 million and still got turned down, it's reasonable to conclude that those figures are correct. Plus it would be rather stupid for an already unpopular owner to publicly state a specific figure that he had no intention of accepting. That's really setting yourself up.

 

Just because we don't have perfect knowledge doesn't mean that any speculation is as good as any other. You can believe that Ashley was lying about the figure if you want, but it's not very logical.

[Happy Face]

Happy Face - Ashley was selling the club for £100million, with no ongoing loan etc. You mention this is based upon the words of self confessed liars, it isn't. It is true, whether you choose to believe it or not. In fact, the price very momentarily did drop to £80m (plus a few additional fees) before he decided to keep it for the season.

 

 

How do you know it's true?

 

Why did it only momentarily drop to £80m for Barry Moat?  Why was that opportunity not afforded to the several other interested parties sniffing around?

 

As nobody has said that they offered £100 million or £80 million and still got turned down, it's reasonable to conclude that those figures are correct. Plus it would be rather stupid for an already unpopular owner to publicly state a specific figure that he had no intention of accepting. That's really setting yourself up.

 

Just because we don't have perfect knowledge doesn't mean that any speculation is as good as any other. You can believe that Ashley was lying about the figure if you want, but it's not very logical.

 

I don't so much think the up front figure was a lie.  I just don't know (literally have no idea) if he was actually willing to take a hit on the debt he's built up to himself in the clubs name, if he wanted those loans repaid instantly or what kind of interest rate he'd be applying for the new owners to take them on.  As you say, unless anyone provides anything concrete, it's all speculation (whatever ITK claims people make).  All I know is i didn't believe a word that came out of the club then, and I don't now.

 

I do wonder why our debts are still outstanding if Ashley has expressed a willingness to write them off for any buyers coming in.  Why doesn't he improve the club balance sheet by cancelling those loans like the owners have at Man City and Chelsea?

[Cronky]

Happy Face - Ashley was selling the club for £100million, with no ongoing loan etc. You mention this is based upon the words of self confessed liars, it isn't. It is true, whether you choose to believe it or not. In fact, the price very momentarily did drop to £80m (plus a few additional fees) before he decided to keep it for the season.

 

 

How do you know it's true?

 

Why did it only momentarily drop to £80m for Barry Moat?  Why was that opportunity not afforded to the several other interested parties sniffing around?

 

As nobody has said that they offered £100 million or £80 million and still got turned down, it's reasonable to conclude that those figures are correct. Plus it would be rather stupid for an already unpopular owner to publicly state a specific figure that he had no intention of accepting. That's really setting yourself up.

 

Just because we don't have perfect knowledge doesn't mean that any speculation is as good as any other. You can believe that Ashley was lying about the figure if you want, but it's not very logical.

 

I don't so much think the up front figure was a lie.  I just don't know (literally have no idea) if he was actually willing to take a hit on the debt he's built up to himself in the clubs name, if he wanted those loans repaid instantly or what kind of interest rate he'd be applying for the new owners to take them on.  As you say, unless anyone provides anything concrete, it's all speculation (whatever ITK claims people make).  All I know is i didn't believe a word that came out of the club then, and I don't now.

 

I do wonder why our debts are still outstanding if Ashley has expressed a willingness to write them off for any buyers coming in.  Why doesn't he improve the club balance sheet by cancelling those loans like the owners have at Man City and Chelsea?

 

The situation at Chelsea and Man City isn't clear to me, but certainly Abramovich's backing was defined as a loan for quite a long while, and I've not heard that City's debts have been written off.

 

I'm not sure on this, but my assumption is that if you officially declare that a loan is effectively a grant, it then becomes income and is liable to tax. Either that, or a loan has certain tax advantages for yourself as the loaner. So if Ashley was to declare in advance of the sale that he was going to write off the loan, that would have consequences.

 

In any event, who would it benefit if you declared that you were writing off the loan before you needed to? The situation for the club wouldn't change in practice, and you'd be giving up some element of leverage that you had with a future buyer, for no reward.

 

Someone with more experience of corporate finance may wish to intervene here?

[Happy Face]

Happy Face - Ashley was selling the club for £100million, with no ongoing loan etc. You mention this is based upon the words of self confessed liars, it isn't. It is true, whether you choose to believe it or not. In fact, the price very momentarily did drop to £80m (plus a few additional fees) before he decided to keep it for the season.

 

 

How do you know it's true?

 

Why did it only momentarily drop to £80m for Barry Moat?  Why was that opportunity not afforded to the several other interested parties sniffing around?

 

As nobody has said that they offered £100 million or £80 million and still got turned down, it's reasonable to conclude that those figures are correct. Plus it would be rather stupid for an already unpopular owner to publicly state a specific figure that he had no intention of accepting. That's really setting yourself up.

 

Just because we don't have perfect knowledge doesn't mean that any speculation is as good as any other. You can believe that Ashley was lying about the figure if you want, but it's not very logical.

 

I don't so much think the up front figure was a lie.  I just don't know (literally have no idea) if he was actually willing to take a hit on the debt he's built up to himself in the clubs name, if he wanted those loans repaid instantly or what kind of interest rate he'd be applying for the new owners to take them on.  As you say, unless anyone provides anything concrete, it's all speculation (whatever ITK claims people make).  All I know is i didn't believe a word that came out of the club then, and I don't now.

 

I do wonder why our debts are still outstanding if Ashley has expressed a willingness to write them off for any buyers coming in.  Why doesn't he improve the club balance sheet by cancelling those loans like the owners have at Man City and Chelsea?

 

 

I'm not sure on this, but my assumption is that if you officially declare that a loan is effectively a grant, it then becomes income and is liable to tax. Either that, or a loan has certain tax advantages for yourself as the loaner. So if Ashley was to declare in advance of the sale that he was going to write off the loan, that would have consequences.

 

In any event, who would it benefit if you declared that you were writing off the loan before you needed to? The situation for the club wouldn't change in practice, and you'd be giving up some element of leverage that you had with a future buyer, for no reward.

 

Someone with more experience of corporate finance may wish to intervene here?

 

I thought all outstanding interest free loans were converted to equity...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/dec/30/chelsea-roman-abramovich-debt-scolari

[bealios]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

 

 

 

[quayside]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that there would be a different tax treatment depending on whether Ashley's hit was shown as being on the club sale or on the loan. Assuming the deal value was £80 million all in, then Ashley's loss would be, lets say, £164 million (it might actually be more than that depending on if he stuck more funds in during 2009).

 

If he took the hit on the club value then he has a capital loss of £134 million and a trading loss of £30 million. If he took the hit on the loan value then he has a capital loss of £54 million and a trading loss of £110 million. The transaction would be structured around his tax requirements, as you say.

 

Happy Face raised the question of why Ashley hasn't converted the loan into equity. If he did that then the whole of his loss would be a capital loss and I can only guess that he has tax reasons for not wanting to do that. Alternatively he may just be waiting until we achieve the hoped for Premiership status so that he can have a look at the whole debt/equity thing again based on a potentially higher valuation.

[Happy Face]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

In a nutshell, the buyer would pay Ashley £80m as a settlement on the £110m+ loans outstanding (£30m loss)...and £1 for the club (£134m loss).

 

Again, i don't buy it, but if it is the case, it's a horrible indictment of his  purchase and his running of the club.  He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded him at the helm, probably moreso. 

 

He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years.

[madras]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

In a nutshell, the buyer would pay Ashley £80m as a settlement on the £110m+ loans outstanding (£30m loss)...and £1 for the club (£134m loss).

 

Again, i don't buy it, but if it is the case, it's a horrible indictment of his  purchase and his running of the club.  He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded him at the helm, probably moreso. 

 

He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years.

putting it like that is like saying that as shearer was manager when we got relegated then it is solely his fault.

[Happy Face]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

In a nutshell, the buyer would pay Ashley £80m as a settlement on the £110m+ loans outstanding (£30m loss)...and £1 for the club (£134m loss).

 

Again, i don't buy it, but if it is the case, it's a horrible indictment of his  purchase and his running of the club.  He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded him at the helm, probably moreso. 

 

He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years.

putting it like that is like saying that as shearer was manager when we got relegated then it is solely his fault.

 

Don't be silly.

 

I don't think I said anyone has been solely to blame for anything.

 

Shearer was in charge for 8 games. He took us from being 2 points from safety to a finish 1 point from safety (closer to survival).  We'd taken 6 points from the last eight games before he came in and he won 5 points from the last 8 games (only slightly worse).  He spent nothing.  He didin't have the time or the power to make the situation any worse.

 

Completely different to spending 18 months following the policy of your predecessor (badly), then blaming your predecessor and his policy for all the ills that have befallen the club.

[madras]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

In a nutshell, the buyer would pay Ashley £80m as a settlement on the £110m+ loans outstanding (£30m loss)...and £1 for the club (£134m loss).

 

Again, i don't buy it, but if it is the case, it's a horrible indictment of his  purchase and his running of the club.  He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded him at the helm, probably moreso. 

 

He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years.

putting it like that is like saying that as shearer was manager when we got relegated then it is solely his fault.

 

Don't be silly.

 

I don't think I said anyone has been solely to blame for anything.

 

Shearer was in charge for 8 games. He took us from being 2 points from safety to a finish 1 point from safety (closer to survival).  We'd taken 6 points from the last eight games before he came in and he won 5 points from the last 8 games (only slightly worse).  He spent nothing.  He didin't have the time or the power to make the situation any worse.

 

Completely different to spending 18 months following the policy of your predecessor (badly), then blaming your predecessor and his policy for all the ills that have befallen the club.

are you telling me that "He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years." wasn't meant to intimate that you held him responsible ?

 

did he spend 18months following the policy of fred. seems more like one summer to me.

[Happy Face]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

In a nutshell, the buyer would pay Ashley £80m as a settlement on the £110m+ loans outstanding (£30m loss)...and £1 for the club (£134m loss).

 

Again, i don't buy it, but if it is the case, it's a horrible indictment of his  purchase and his running of the club.  He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded him at the helm, probably moreso. 

 

He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years.

putting it like that is like saying that as shearer was manager when we got relegated then it is solely his fault.

 

Don't be silly.

 

I don't think I said anyone has been solely to blame for anything.

 

Shearer was in charge for 8 games. He took us from being 2 points from safety to a finish 1 point from safety (closer to survival).  We'd taken 6 points from the last eight games before he came in and he won 5 points from the last 8 games (only slightly worse).  He spent nothing.  He didin't have the time or the power to make the situation any worse.

 

Completely different to spending 18 months following the policy of your predecessor (badly), then blaming your predecessor and his policy for all the ills that have befallen the club.

are you telling me that "He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years." wasn't meant to intimate that you held him responsible ?

 

did he spend 18months following the policy of fred. seems more like one summer to me.

 

I said it above..."He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded "

 

It was about 15 months after buying the club he gave Coloccini his current contract used as a prime example of the crippling wage bill.

[madras]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

In a nutshell, the buyer would pay Ashley £80m as a settlement on the £110m+ loans outstanding (£30m loss)...and £1 for the club (£134m loss).

 

Again, i don't buy it, but if it is the case, it's a horrible indictment of his  purchase and his running of the club.  He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded him at the helm, probably moreso. 

 

He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years.

putting it like that is like saying that as shearer was manager when we got relegated then it is solely his fault.

 

Don't be silly.

 

I don't think I said anyone has been solely to blame for anything.

 

Shearer was in charge for 8 games. He took us from being 2 points from safety to a finish 1 point from safety (closer to survival).  We'd taken 6 points from the last eight games before he came in and he won 5 points from the last 8 games (only slightly worse).  He spent nothing.  He didin't have the time or the power to make the situation any worse.

 

Completely different to spending 18 months following the policy of your predecessor (badly), then blaming your predecessor and his policy for all the ills that have befallen the club.

are you telling me that "He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years." wasn't meant to intimate that you held him responsible ?

 

did he spend 18months following the policy of fred. seems more like one summer to me.

 

I said it above..."He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded "

 

It was about 15 months after buying the club he gave Coloccini his current contract used as a prime example of the crippling wage bill.

i'd like to actually know how much coloccini's on. i've heard everywhere from £45,000 to £80,000.

 

like yourself i blame him in part, my apologies as i thought you were, like many, attempting to make out it was all his fault.

[Guest malandro]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

In a nutshell, the buyer would pay Ashley £80m as a settlement on the £110m+ loans outstanding (£30m loss)...and £1 for the club (£134m loss).

 

Again, i don't buy it, but if it is the case, it's a horrible indictment of his  purchase and his running of the club.  He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded him at the helm, probably moreso. 

 

He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years.

putting it like that is like saying that as shearer was manager when we got relegated then it is solely his fault.

 

Don't be silly.

 

I don't think I said anyone has been solely to blame for anything.

 

Shearer was in charge for 8 games. He took us from being 2 points from safety to a finish 1 point from safety (closer to survival).  We'd taken 6 points from the last eight games before he came in and he won 5 points from the last 8 games (only slightly worse).  He spent nothing.  He didin't have the time or the power to make the situation any worse.

 

Completely different to spending 18 months following the policy of your predecessor (badly), then blaming your predecessor and his policy for all the ills that have befallen the club.

are you telling me that "He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years." wasn't meant to intimate that you held him responsible ?

 

did he spend 18months following the policy of fred. seems more like one summer to me.

 

I said it above..."He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded "

 

It was about 15 months after buying the club he gave Coloccini his current contract used as a prime example of the crippling wage bill.

i'd like to actually know how much coloccini's on. i've heard everywhere from £45,000 to £80,000.

 

like yourself i blame him in part, my apologies as i thought you were, like many, attempting to make out it was all his fault.

At what point does the state of the club’s finances become Ashley’s fault then?  When does he become responsible for what’s happening at the club?

 

The figures are a bit worrying. A weekly loss of £500k works out at annual loss of £26m, and that’s after receiving a £12m parachute payment and making a net transfer profit of at least £10m.  That means that if we go up the extra £35m in TV money won’t even cover the losses the club are incurring under the current set up. Where is the money for team strengthening going to come from, could it be a case of having to cut the wage bill further?

 

[OzzieMandias]

I believe that the actual method of how it was being done was that the shares in Newcastle were being bought for a £1, and the £110m+ loan to Ashley (as it was then) was being bought for what we all think of as the sale price. So technically the loan isn't being written off from the clubs point of view, it is just being assigned to the new owner who buys the debt, but since the shares only cost £1 then the position is pretty much the same.

 

I'm no tax expert, but from the little I do know I think that would mean that Ashley would face a massive loss on the share sale (£100m+), but might be able to move that loss around other companies in the group to offset against any gains, meaning the actual loss to Ashley would be a lot less (but still huge of course). But he wouldn't have been entitled to any more payments i.e. to sell the club for £80m but then start charging interest in the loans - he would have no further interest in NUFC.

 

In a nutshell, the buyer would pay Ashley £80m as a settlement on the £110m+ loans outstanding (£30m loss)...and £1 for the club (£134m loss).

 

Again, i don't buy it, but if it is the case, it's a horrible indictment of his  purchase and his running of the club.  He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded him at the helm, probably moreso. 

 

He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years.

putting it like that is like saying that as shearer was manager when we got relegated then it is solely his fault.

 

Don't be silly.

 

I don't think I said anyone has been solely to blame for anything.

 

Shearer was in charge for 8 games. He took us from being 2 points from safety to a finish 1 point from safety (closer to survival).  We'd taken 6 points from the last eight games before he came in and he won 5 points from the last 8 games (only slightly worse).  He spent nothing.  He didin't have the time or the power to make the situation any worse.

 

Completely different to spending 18 months following the policy of your predecessor (badly), then blaming your predecessor and his policy for all the ills that have befallen the club.

are you telling me that "He increased the wage bill at the club by over 10% in his first year, paid out large redundancy packages to two managers in his first 18 months and got us relegated within two years." wasn't meant to intimate that you held him responsible ?

 

did he spend 18months following the policy of fred. seems more like one summer to me.

 

I said it above..."He's every bit as much to blame as anyone that preceded "

 

It was about 15 months after buying the club he gave Coloccini his current contract used as a prime example of the crippling wage bill.

i'd like to actually know how much coloccini's on. i've heard everywhere from £45,000 to £80,000.

 

like yourself i blame him in part, my apologies as i thought you were, like many, attempting to make out it was all his fault.

At what point does the state of the club’s finances become Ashley’s fault then?  When does he become responsible for what’s happening at the club?

 

The figures are a bit worrying. A weekly loss of £500k works out at annual loss of £26m, and that’s after receiving a £12m parachute payment and making a net transfer profit of at least £10m.  That means that if we go up the extra £35m in TV money won’t even cover the losses the club are incurring under the current set up. Where is the money for team strengthening going to come from, could it be a case of having to cut the wage bill further?

 

 

I dunno, but...

 

1) The "£500,000 a week" isn't some gospel figure. It was an unnamed "source" in a half-baked story in a crap newspaper. If it refers to anything, it's probably to the £20 million Ashley was announced as putting in after no one came up with the money to buy the club.

 

2) If we go up, and the extra TV money etc then covers costs, then Ashley's £20 million next year might go to funding playing purchases rather than making up the shortfall.

 

3) Won't some of our higher earners drop off the wage bill anyway after this season? Butt, for example.

 

4) Isn't there money soon to come in from a new shirt sponsorship deal?