Llambias on SSN

[gazza ladra]

The Ashley vs Shepherd, who was better debate is like discussing the benefits of syphilis compared to herpes

Herpes every time.

[Happy Face]

 

Your post goes back to the Shepherd is better than Ashley is better than Shepherd debate which is now irrelevant. The current debate is about the Llambias statements (and other unattributed ones) suggesting what a good lad Ashley is for putting money into the club. He has to because we were relegated and in order to protect his investment.

 

Your post totally dismisses the state of the club at the time that Ashley bought it.  I could have sworn that this thread was discussing our current situation and why we are were we are and the benefits or not of having Ashley.  It’s too easy to pretend that this is about Shepherd v Ashley, which it isn’t and bury your head in the sand when it suits you.  My post is about what Ashley inherited and it being part of the reason why we’re in the shit. 

 

I could see where you were coming from if Ashley had improved the clubs position either financially or positionally (if that's a word).

But by December it was him who'd doubled the debt he inherited from £70m to £140m.  Llambias says he's just extended that debt by another £25 or £30m. And we're still in the championship.  In Shepherd's last 4 years he averaged a £12m loss each season.  Llambias has apparently almost trebled that to an average loss of £32m a season over 3 years.

 

The situation he inhereted was a pretty shitty one.  But he's managed to make it a whole lot worse.

 

What did he do exactly to do this? I thought Quayside said that Ashley inherited a club that was losing £30m a year. 

 

Amongst others, he signed Viduka, Barton, Geremi, Smith and Coloccini on expensive contracts without relegation clauses.  He similarly extended the contracts of Butt, Ameobi and Taylor without condition of relegation, he sacked two managers who required expensive payouts and he got us relegated.

 

We'd lost £30m in Shepherd's last year in charge.  We never lost more than £12m any other year. In the 3 years prior to the £33m loss, the average was £5m a season.  For the loan to have since extended their loans by £96m would be astonishing, VERY worrying, and entirely Ashley's choice.

 

Of course if he were to cancel the loans I'd forgive most of it.

[Mick]

 

I could see where you were coming from if Ashley had improved the clubs position either financially or positionally (if that's a word).

 

But by December it was him who'd doubled the debt he inherited from £70m to £140m.  Llambias says he's just extended that debt by another £25 or £30m. And we're still in the championship.  In Shepherd's last 4 years he averaged a £12m loss each season.  Llambias has apparently almost trebled that to an average loss of £32m a season over 3 years.

 

The situation he inhereted was a pretty shitty one.  But he's managed to make it a whole lot worse.

 

Our financial health has been stabalised and it should begin to improve.

 

If anything good can come from our relegation then it will be getting rid of the dead-wood which we've picked up over the years and probably couldn't afford to get rid of while in the Premiership.  We need good management at the club to gain from our current situation and start to build once again.  Can we do that with Ashley and llambias?  No idea, they haven't looked like being able to do that so far and they must deliver if we go up.

[Happy Face]

 

I could see where you were coming from if Ashley had improved the clubs position either financially or positionally (if that's a word).

 

But by December it was him who'd doubled the debt he inherited from £70m to £140m.  Llambias says he's just extended that debt by another £25 or £30m. And we're still in the championship.  In Shepherd's last 4 years he averaged a £12m loss each season.  Llambias has apparently almost trebled that to an average loss of £32m a season over 3 years.

 

The situation he inhereted was a pretty shitty one.  But he's managed to make it a whole lot worse.

 

Our financial health has been stabalised and it should begin to improve.

 

If anything good can come from our relegation then it will be getting rid of the dead-wood which we've picked up over the years and probably couldn't afford to get rid of while in the Premiership.  We need good management at the club to gain from our current situation and start to build once again.  Can we do that with Ashley and llambias?  No idea, they haven't looked like being able to do that so far and they must deliver if we go up.

 

The only reason the £70m of debt outstanding under Shepherd in the Premier League was less sustainable than the £166m of debt we've now got under Ashley in the Championship is that Ashley is covering it.  That's not a compliment either.

 

 

[Guest malandro]

Our loss during the last season we had the Halls and shepherds was £32 million before tax, up from £12 million the year before.

 

It is clear which direction we were heading long before Ashley came here.  We had originally taken out a loan for almost £33 million which was to cover the expansion and we were paying 7.36% interest on it.  We had another loan for almost £10 million which we were paying 7.65% interest on, both were secured against future ticket sales. 

 

We also had a loan for almost £17 million which was secured against future TV income.  And we'd spent future income from sponsorship which was showing on the balance sheet as future income. 

 

When the club was floated we had a pot of money which the club spent over the years and once that money was frittered away we were in the s*** and losses just increased.  Basically we'd spent our future income long before Ashley appeared on the scene and for anybody to think that we were safe without him is crazy, we'd pawned the crown jewels and were living on future income, we had nothing else to pawn.

 

That fact still remains, with a large and loyal customer base NUFC represented a good acquisition if the club could be turned around. Both the stadium and the training complex had been built, all the component elements needed of a club that could challenge for a CL place were there. The problem was cash flow. So the question is how much investment was needed to turn things around, and what price would have been a fair reflection. Clearly £135m was an absurd price. If Ashley hadn’t waded in Hall and Shepherd would have been forced to lower their price, leaving more of any investment budget to sort out the underlying problem. We might even have ended up being put on the market for a quid by an administrator, but at some point the price would have declined to a point where a buyer would have come in.

 

Ultimately we can’t know what would have happened to NUFC if Ashley had stuck to flogging cheap sportswear, and nor does Mr Ashley. He should just shut the fuck up about what a hero he thinks he is and tell us how the club is going to pay back the £190m (or whatever our debts are now).

 

[Happy Face]

 

Your post goes back to the Shepherd is better than Ashley is better than Shepherd debate which is now irrelevant. The current debate is about the Llambias statements (and other unattributed ones) suggesting what a good lad Ashley is for putting money into the club. He has to because we were relegated and in order to protect his investment.

 

Your post totally dismisses the state of the club at the time that Ashley bought it.  I could have sworn that this thread was discussing our current situation and why we are were we are and the benefits or not of having Ashley.  It’s too easy to pretend that this is about Shepherd v Ashley, which it isn’t and bury your head in the sand when it suits you.  My post is about what Ashley inherited and it being part of the reason why we’re in the shit. 

 

I could see where you were coming from if Ashley had improved the clubs position either financially or positionally (if that's a word).

But by December it was him who'd doubled the debt he inherited from £70m to £140m.  Llambias says he's just extended that debt by another £25 or £30m. And we're still in the championship.  In Shepherd's last 4 years he averaged a £12m loss each season.  Llambias has apparently almost trebled that to an average loss of £32m a season over 3 years.

 

The situation he inhereted was a pretty shitty one.  But he's managed to make it a whole lot worse.

 

What did he do exactly to do this? I thought Quayside said that Ashley inherited a club that was losing £30m a year. 

 

Amongst others, he signed Viduka, Barton, Geremi, Smith and Coloccini on expensive contracts without relegation clauses.  He similarly extended the contracts of Butt, Ameobi and Taylor without condition of relegation, he sacked two managers who required expensive payouts and he got us relegated.

 

We'd lost £30m in Shepherd's last year in charge.  We never lost more than £12m any other year. In the 3 years prior to the £33m loss, the average was £5m a season.  For the loan to have since extended their loans by £96m would be astonishing, VERY worrying, and entirely Ashley's choice.

 

Of course if he were to cancel the loans I'd forgive most of it.

 

Paid Dennis Wise £2m a year...

 

...to spend £5m on Xisco....

 

etc.

[Mick]

 

Amongst others, he signed Viduka, Barton, Geremi, Smith and Coloccini on expensive contracts without relegation clauses.  He similarly extended the contracts of Butt, Ameobi and Taylor without condition of relegation, he sacked two managers who required expensive payouts and he got us relegated.

 

We'd lost £30m in Shepherd's last year in charge.  We never lost more than £12m any other year. In the 3 years prior to the £33m loss, the average was £5m a season.  For the loan to have since extended their loans by £96m would be astonishing, VERY worrying, and entirely Ashley's choice.

 

Of course if he were to cancel the loans I'd forgive most of it.

 

Smith was the first signing they made, the others were lined up before they were in control and all they did was agree to the transfers before they knew the true state of the club.  They weren't in a position to do much different at that time without knowing the state of the club, what do you think would have happened if they had refused to sanction those transfers at that time?  The club was running and they had to allow the club to function on a normal basis at that time.

 

As for the losses, the season before we lost £33 million was an 11 month season and we lost £12 million.  I think we made a small loss in 2005 and a £4 million profit in 2004 so I don't know where you're getting your figures from, mine are coming straight from our accounts.  I can't be arsed to look to see when we got something like £10 million to cover the injury to Michael Owen, we had to pay his wages once his injury cleared up so we had a boost one financial year.

[Mick]

 

The only reason the £70m of debt outstanding under Shepherd in the Premier League was less sustainable than the £166m of debt we've now got under Ashley in the Championship is that Ashley is covering it.  That's not a compliment either.

 

 

 

The debt wasn't £70 million, we had spent future income so the debt was higher and closer to £100 million as Michael Owen was our future Northern Rock and Adidas sponsorship money.  The season before we were taken over saw our annual debt almost treble, our gates had fallen by almost 2,000 per game and our wages to revenue ratio had risen from 63% to 72%.

[Happy Face]

 

Amongst others, he signed Viduka, Barton, Geremi, Smith and Coloccini on expensive contracts without relegation clauses.  He similarly extended the contracts of Butt, Ameobi and Taylor without condition of relegation, he sacked two managers who required expensive payouts and he got us relegated.

 

We'd lost £33m in Shepherd's last year in charge.  We never lost more than £12m any other year. In the 3 years prior to the £33m loss, the average was £5m a season.  For the loan to have since extended their loans by £96m would be astonishing, VERY worrying, and entirely Ashley's choice.

 

Of course if he were to cancel the loans I'd forgive most of it.

 

Smith was the first signing they made, the others were lined up before they were in control and all they did was agree to the transfers before they knew the true state of the club.  They weren't in a position to do much different at that time without knowing the state of the club, what do you think would have happened if they had refused to sanction those transfers at that time?  The club was running and they had to allow the club to function on a normal basis at that time.

 

As for the losses, the season before we lost £33 million was an 11 month season and we lost £12 million.  I think we made a small loss in 2005 and a £4 million profit in 2004 so I don't know where you're getting your figures from, mine are coming straight from our accounts.  I can't be arsed to look to see when we got something like £10 million to cover the injury to Michael Owen, we had to pay his wages once his injury cleared up so we had a boost one financial year.

 

I agree with your figures.  I'd just rounded the £33m down to £30m (of course £7m of that was interest that Ashley doesn't have to worry about, so to be averaging a £32m loss each year is even more astonishing).

 

On the few signings he sanctioned early on...he never exactly put a stop to that at any point down the line until relegation looked likely.

[Happy Face]

 

The only reason the £70m of debt outstanding under Shepherd in the Premier League was less sustainable than the £166m of debt we've now got under Ashley in the Championship is that Ashley is covering it.  That's not a compliment either.

 

 

 

The debt wasn't £70 million, we had spent future income so the debt was higher and closer to £100 million as Michael Owen was our future Northern Rock and Adidas sponsorship money.  The season before we were taken over saw our annual debt almost treble, our gates had fallen by almost 2,000 per game and our wages to revenue ratio had risen from 63% to 72%.

 

That was Ashley's first year in charge (2008) wasn't it?

[Mick]

That fact still remains, with a large and loyal customer base NUFC represented a good acquisition if the club could be turned around. Both the stadium and the training complex had been built, all the component elements needed of a club that could challenge for a CL place were there. The problem was cash flow. So the question is how much investment was needed to turn things around, and what price would have been a fair reflection. Clearly £135m was an absurd price. If Ashley hadnt waded in Hall and Shepherd would have been forced to lower their price, leaving more of any investment budget to sort out the underlying problem. We might even have ended up being put on the market for a quid by an administrator, but at some point the price would have declined to a point where a buyer would have come in.

 

Ultimately we cant know what would have happened to NUFC if Ashley had stuck to flogging cheap sportswear, and nor does Mr Ashley. He should just shut the f*** up about what a hero he thinks he is and tell us how the club is going to pay back the £190m (or whatever our debts are now).

 

 

I agree with most of that.

[Guest malandro]

 

Amongst others, he signed Viduka, Barton, Geremi, Smith and Coloccini on expensive contracts without relegation clauses.  He similarly extended the contracts of Butt, Ameobi and Taylor without condition of relegation, he sacked two managers who required expensive payouts and he got us relegated.

 

We'd lost £30m in Shepherd's last year in charge.  We never lost more than £12m any other year. In the 3 years prior to the £33m loss, the average was £5m a season.  For the loan to have since extended their loans by £96m would be astonishing, VERY worrying, and entirely Ashley's choice.

 

Of course if he were to cancel the loans I'd forgive most of it.

 

Smith was the first signing they made, the others were lined up before they were in control and all they did was agree to the transfers before they knew the true state of the club.  They weren't in a position to do much different at that time without knowing the state of the club, what do you think would have happened if they had refused to sanction those transfers at that time?  The club was running and they had to allow the club to function on a normal basis at that time.

 

As for the losses, the season before we lost £33 million was an 11 month season and we lost £12 million.  I think we made a small loss in 2005 and a £4 million profit in 2004 so I don't know where you're getting your figures from, mine are coming straight from our accounts.  I can't be arsed to look to see when we got something like £10 million to cover the injury to Michael Owen, we had to pay his wages once his injury cleared up so we had a boost one financial year.

Fat Sam would have resigned? Saving them the £5m it cost to sack him seven months later?

 

We can only judge Ashley on what’s happened (not  what didn’t) and what’s he’s done is fuck the club around, cost us £30m by getting us relegated and massively increase our debts. It’s indefensible.

 

[Mick]

 

That was Ashley's first year in charge (2008) wasn't it?

 

That was from the first set of accounts which they signed off and they were for the season before they arrived.  The accounts covered up until 30th June 2007.

[Mick]

Fat Sam would have resigned? Saving them the £5m it cost to sack him seven months later?

 

We can only judge Ashley on what’s happened (not  what didn’t) and what’s he’s done is f*** the club around, cost us £30m by getting us relegated and massively increase our debts. It’s indefensible.

 

 

That would have been suicidal as we'd let so many players go after the season before had ended.  I know you don’t seem to want to discuss what might have happened but if we’d stopped incoming transfers I doubt we would have stayed up that season.

[Happy Face]

 

That was Ashley's first year in charge (2008) wasn't it?

 

That was from the first set of accounts which they signed off and they were for the season before they arrived.  The accounts covered up until 30th June 2007.

 

Are you sure you've got that right

 

The accounts released in January 2009 said...

 

United’s wage bill, including players, directors and other staff, has shot up by nearly £5m to just under £70m.That swallows-up around 70% of the company’s annual revenue, a situation football finance experts last night voiced concerns over.

 

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

 

That's covering 2007/2008 isn't it?  Otherwise there's been no accounts covering any of Ashley's time at the club.

[Mick]

 

That was Ashley's first year in charge (2008) wasn't it?

 

That was from the first set of accounts which they signed off and they were for the season before they arrived.  The accounts covered up until 30th June 2007.

 

Are you sure you've got that right

 

The accounts released in January 2009 said...

 

United’s wage bill, including players, directors and other staff, has shot up by nearly £5m to just under £70m.That swallows-up around 70% of the company’s annual revenue, a situation football finance experts last night voiced concerns over.

 

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

 

That's covering 2007/2008 isn't it?  Otherwise there's been no accounts covering any of Ashley's time at the club.

 

I'm 100% certain, I've got the accounts open now and it covers the takeover and specifically mentions buying out Sir John Hall in June of that year, the end of that financial year was 30th June and just over 3 weeks later.

[Guest malandro]

Fat Sam would have resigned? Saving them the £5m it cost to sack him seven months later?

 

We can only judge Ashley on what’s happened (not  what didn’t) and what’s he’s done is f*** the club around, cost us £30m by getting us relegated and massively increase our debts. It’s indefensible.

 

 

That would have been suicidal as we'd let so many players go after the season before had ended.  I know you don’t seem to want to discuss what might have happened but if we’d stopped incoming transfers I doubt we would have stayed up that season.

I’m only sticking to the counter argument because it seems the latest PR bullshit is starting to be accepted as fact.  Shepherd and Hall made mistakes, but two wrongs don’t make a right. 

 

The thing that’s always struck me about as odd about the sale of the club is that Shepherd didn’t want to sell. I know he was an idiot a lot of the time but was he stupid enough to stay onboard a sinking ship. Could he have had a rescue plan? I’ve always suspected bringing in Allardyce was a sign the club was preparing for a reduction in expenditure, building a team that did OK in the PL without spending a lot of money is what his reputation was built on.

 

[Mick]

I've just had another look at the accounts which were showing a £33 million loss, it included a one off payment of £6.7 million for the Michael Owen injury while playing for England.    Take out that and we would have lost almost £40 million during the season before the takeover.

[Happy Face]

 

That was Ashley's first year in charge (2008) wasn't it?

 

That was from the first set of accounts which they signed off and they were for the season before they arrived.  The accounts covered up until 30th June 2007.

 

Are you sure you've got that right

 

The accounts released in January 2009 said...

 

United’s wage bill, including players, directors and other staff, has shot up by nearly £5m to just under £70m.That swallows-up around 70% of the company’s annual revenue, a situation football finance experts last night voiced concerns over.

 

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

 

That's covering 2007/2008 isn't it?  Otherwise there's been no accounts covering any of Ashley's time at the club.

 

I'm 100% certain, I've got the accounts open now and it covers the takeover and specifically mentions buying out Sir John Hall in June of that year, the end of that financial year was 30th June and just over 3 weeks later.

 

Not like NUFC-Finances.org.uk to get it wrong.  Their 2008 results say...

 

This a brief look at the club finances for the season that ended July 2008, so the first full season that Mike Ashley was owner.

...

The wages have gone up from £63.4m to roughly £70m.

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

 

If only yours wasn't a hard copy and you could quote it.  :-[

[Mick]

Im only sticking to the counter argument because it seems the latest PR bullshit is starting to be accepted as fact.  Shepherd and Hall made mistakes, but two wrongs dont make a right. 

 

The thing thats always struck me about as odd about the sale of the club is that Shepherd didnt want to sell. I know he was an idiot a lot of the time but was he stupid enough to stay onboard a sinking ship. Could he have had a rescue plan? Ive always suspected bringing in Allardyce was a sign the club was preparing for a reduction in expenditure, building a team that did OK in the PL without spending a lot of money is what his reputation was built on.

 

 

We'll never know I guess, we needed another Bobby Robson appointment and they don't come around very often.

[Mick]

 

That was Ashley's first year in charge (2008) wasn't it?

 

That was from the first set of accounts which they signed off and they were for the season before they arrived.  The accounts covered up until 30th June 2007.

 

Are you sure you've got that right

 

The accounts released in January 2009 said...

 

Uniteds wage bill, including players, directors and other staff, has shot up by nearly £5m to just under £70m.That swallows-up around 70% of the companys annual revenue, a situation football finance experts last night voiced concerns over.

 

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

 

That's covering 2007/2008 isn't it?  Otherwise there's been no accounts covering any of Ashley's time at the club.

 

I'm 100% certain, I've got the accounts open now and it covers the takeover and specifically mentions buying out Sir John Hall in June of that year, the end of that financial year was 30th June and just over 3 weeks later.

 

Not like NUFC-Finances.org.uk to get it wrong.  Their 2008 results say...

 

This a brief look at the club finances for the season that ended July 2008, so the first full season that Mike Ashley was owner.

...

The wages have gone up from £63.4m to roughly £70m.

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

 

If only yours wasn't a hard copy and you could quote it.  :-[

 

Wages during the 2006 to 2007 financial year were £62.5 million but that was for the whole club so included everybody who were paid by the club.  The figures you quote will be the same and include every employee. 

[Guest malandro]

I’m only sticking to the counter argument because it seems the latest PR bullshit is starting to be accepted as fact.  Shepherd and Hall made mistakes, but two wrongs don’t make a right. 

 

The thing that’s always struck me about as odd about the sale of the club is that Shepherd didn’t want to sell. I know he was an idiot a lot of the time but was he stupid enough to stay onboard a sinking ship. Could he have had a rescue plan? I’ve always suspected bringing in Allardyce was a sign the club was preparing for a reduction in expenditure, building a team that did OK in the PL without spending a lot of money is what his reputation was built on.

 

 

We'll never know I guess, we needed another Bobby Robson appointment and they don't come around very often.

No, which is why it’s better to stick to actual events and not let Ashley lead us into some hypothetical quagmire. 

 

When do the next lot of accounts become public, about the same time the latest season ticket deal expires perhaps?

 

[Cronky]

Shepherd was enthusiastic, but not the sharpest tool in the box. I've heard that it was his brother Bruce that was the brains behind his business, and of course it was Sir John Hall who shaped the modern NUFC. He was okay when he had Freddie Fletcher at the executive helm, but once Shepherd took charge things went downhill.

 

Shepherd was a real fan and loved his job, but like many fans he was a bit of a dreamer and over optimistic. He thought that this hotel / conference centre plan would provide the way out of the financial mess that he'd dug himself into. Sir John Hall knew better and eventually pulled the plug on him.

[Thespence]

I would imagine by the red carpet he was standing on he was at the premiere of his sons film. I wonder if NUFC charged Llambliar jnr for using Sjp or it was a freebie.

 

Has to be after reading the following:

 

 

 

MIKE ASHLEY may now keep a low profile at Newcastle but he sure can throw a party.

 

Last night he underwrote a bells-and-whistles premiere for a new film, The Shouting Men, at the Odeon, Leicester Square.

 

This raw, football movie follows the “on the road” exploits of bread-and-butter fans.

 

Mike Ashley helped fund the initial idea presented to him by actor-producer Warren Lambias, son of Newcastle chairman Derek Lambias.

[UV]

There is a tendency that argues that if Ashley hadn't come then we could have gone out of business. The fact is that nothing is more likely to have exposed the club to that risk than relegation; to argue anything other is facile and Ashley achieved this quick-time. He deserves no credit for putting money into the club other than on a personal level from his inheritors; he is only protecting his investment.

 

All I want from him is to have the club managed in a sensible and progressive way and then we will have a chance at success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course no one knows if we'd have gone out of business if Ashley hadn't bought the club. But when he did buy it our balance sheet was insolvent and that means that someone had to guarantee to fund the club for the next 12 months or the auditors wouldn't sign it off as a going concern. If its not signed off as a going concern every secured creditor has the right to foreclose.

 

So who was going to give that guarantee if Ashley didn't?

I do, and the answers is no. ;-)Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m. Things have changed now though, because the clubs debts have nearly trebled in three years and now exceed its market value.

didn't quayside point out that we were insolvent and ashley had to prove he had the funds to keep us going to the auditors ?

And?

you said the answer was no as solvent clubs could blah blah blah................our balance sheet wasn't solvent.

No I didn’t. Do you want me to rephrase it so you can have another stab at the reading thing?

Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m.

 

that to me doesn't describe an insolvent balance sheet.

Did I say the club had to be solvent at the point of sale?

 

It all boils down to getting a return on your investment. An insolvent business isn’t automatically a dead duck; it can still represent an attractive acquisition if the potential future income exceeds its liabilities.  The debt levels merely determine the price, and since NUFC was sold for £135m there was clearly a long way to go before it became worthless.

 

had ashley done due dilligence hall/shepherd would have got nowhere near that figure. would it be going to far to say ashley was the only one interested and he quite possibly wouldn't have bought had he known the full scale of things............then what was there to keep us solvent ?

 

Yup good points. Others had a look but ran a mile after doing due diligence.

Lerner paid £66 million for Villa and it was solvent and had very little debt, different business model I know but were we worth double the price? Would be astonished if Ashley would have bought us knowing what he knows now.

 

So there is something in the rumour that Newcastle spent their Northern Rock sponsorship money up front? "I'd rather keep it broad. I just think the financial position of the club is not as strong as we hoped it might be. But that in itself has not held back our investment on the playing squad and it's something that we'll deal with. We did the typical due diligence one would do on a public takeover. There is no sense that anyone has tried to mislead us."

 

Even Ashley doesn't use the "I didn't do due diligence, I didn't know I'd have to pay off the loan for the stadium, I was conned excuse", that's just used on his behalf by people on the internet, and I'm sure he's grateful. If Ashley rushed through the purchase behind the back of one of the major shareholders who was ill in hospital, it wasn't because he suddenly really really wanted a football club to give all his money to and just couldn't wait to get on with it, it was because he thought he'd stumbled across a bargain, and delaying it would only raise the price he'd have had to pay. Ashley effectively paid £200m for the club and he thought it was worth it at the time.

 

Some of the hedge funds looking at buying the club were probably put off not by the asking price or the state of the finances, but by the poison pill of the stadium loan repayment, however that would not have been a deterrent to Ashley as he has actively looked to pay off any debt the club has even if he did not need to, even to the extent of paying up front for players.

 

We had double the turnover of Villa and had a much better squad at the time so required less investment once bought. Even though Lerner has increased their turnover, they are still losing tens of millions year on year. Yes, we probably were worth double what they were at the time.