Llambias on SSN

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

 

[quayside]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

 

No argument with that. I've never bought into the conspiracy theories about his motives. He's not the first entrepreneur to make a lot of money in an industry he understands and think he could repeat that in an industry he doesn't understand - and he won't be the last.

[johnnypd]

couldn't care less what Llambias says, it's unimportant and unlikely to even be completely truthful. more important is what Ashley does this summer if we can secure promotion. Though in the long run I'd want him out, it is better that he sticks around until we're re-established in the premiership. Trying to sell up again at such a critical period would be a real kick in the teeth.

[Ocho]

couldn't care less what Llambias says, it's unimportant and unlikely to even be completely truthful. more important is what Ashley does this summer if we can secure promotion. Though in the long run I'd want him out, it is better that he sticks around until we're re-established in the premiership. Trying to sell up again at such a critical period would be a real kick in the teeth.

 

I'd be surprised if he didn't sell up in the summer (should we get promoted).  I'm sure he's waiting for our value to go back up and he'll flog us and write us off as a bad experience.

[quayside]

The £10 million you have quoted is a figure from the wrong cash flow. You need to look at the consolidated cash flow because that is the one where all the club transactions are reflected.

 

If you look at the right cash flow in the 2007 accounts you will find that the club shipped £7.5 million in cash in the year and it funded this by increasing its external debt and increasing its overdraft. So you are correct that the there was a mismatch of cash expended against the reported accounting result. However, if you look at the comparative in 2006 you will see that the club shipped £20 million (funded in the same way). Yet the reported accounting loss for the 2006 period was only £12 million.

 

I stand corrected on that, I used the higher £10m figure as that correlated more to the increase in the net debt as calculated on nufc-finances. The point remains that from the point of view of a lay person it is somewhat misleading to say we lost £33m in that year when we actually overspent in cash terms by £7.5m.

 

Does the difference between the £90 million of trading losses (I assume you mean since the club was turned into a plc) and the £68 million of debt correspond to the net payments due on player transfers? Does the upfront payment of the sponsorship money come into it?

 

 

The moral of this is that whilst there will always be differences between cash flows and reported accounting results they are only timing differences. And if you keep incurring trading losses they will need funding at some point. There were approx £90 million of trading losses in the balance sheet at 30th June 2007. These were not fictional losses and at some point in time they would need to be funded. At the same time there was external debt of only £68 million in place so there was a funding shortfall that was going to hit at some point, and Ashley ended up funding it.

 

Am I right in thinking the £22m funding shortfall in the accounts would have been addressed by the sales of Milner, Given and N'Zogbia who would have only shown up as a couple of million worth of assets on the accounts in 06-07?

 

If you look at what happened post Ashley we recorded a reduced loss of £20 million in the year to 30 June 2008. So if you take the approx £90 million Ashley funded from the previous regime plus the £20 million we lost in 2008 you arrive at the £110 million that is shown as owing to Ashley when the accounts were signed in October 2008.

 

It's all about the timing as you say, but the 06-07 accounts took the full hit for Luque (£7.5m) even though he was actually sold in the following accounting period. Without that adjustment there'd have been £5m less of a loss in 06-07 and £5m more in 07-08 levelling it out in spite of the £18m increased TV money.

 

As I said you do get mismatches in cash results and accounting results and 2005/2006 is also misleading since it was heavy on cash burn as we bought Luque and Owen. Not sure what you are implying with your question about the plc. The £90m of losses is not a figure I invented, it is in the balance sheet whether it goes back to plc days or not. I can’t answer your question about payments due on player transfers because the accounts don’t give a breakdown of the debtors and creditors in anything like that sort of detail. The treatment of the sponsorship income in the accounts would be to spread it over the period of the sponsorship deal .i.e. £20m over 4 years = £5m per year in the accounts. I thought you knew that but does that answer your question?

 

A combined profit on Milner, Given and N’zogbia of £20m or thereabouts will be recorded in the 2009 accounts. What the cash requirement of 2009 was is anybody’s guess, especially given the payment terms on transfers, but I would expect an improved accounting result over 2008. If your point is that there was hidden value in the 2007 balance sheet then that’s fair enough but you would also have to look at some players who were overvalued – apart from Luque, was Owen ultimately worth his balance sheet value of £8.5m, or Barton his of £5m? And Babayaro was actually paid to go away in December 2007.

 

I’m sure you will continue to try and make the case that everything was in good shape when Ashley took over. I suppose I could do a Rafa Benitez and say “the financial situation left by the previous board was absolutely fantastic and there was no issue whatsoever over it being a going concern and I wish I was as solvent” – but my lack of sincerity would give me away.   

 

[johnnypd]

couldn't care less what Llambias says, it's unimportant and unlikely to even be completely truthful. more important is what Ashley does this summer if we can secure promotion. Though in the long run I'd want him out, it is better that he sticks around until we're re-established in the premiership. Trying to sell up again at such a critical period would be a real kick in the teeth.

 

I'd be surprised if he didn't sell up in the summer (should we get promoted).  I'm sure he's waiting for our value to go back up and he'll flog us and write us off as a bad experience.

 

well Llambias's comments suggest he won't sell, but only because there's no buyers out there. sounds like he wants to but will hold back for a little bit until a/ we're in a better position and b/ people start investing big money again. Though knowing how much shit Llambias is liable to spout, anything could be true. hopefully Ashley has learnt his lesson and will try to build us back up over the next couple of seasons rather than sabotage our pre-season efforts.

[OzzieMandias]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

[Fenham Mag]

On ITV now

[Ronaldo]

I'd much rather us go into the summer with Ashley certain that he's going to be there in August.

[Mowen]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

 

Spot on.

 

Dekka's a reet cunt though.

[Guest malandro]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

“Sports Direct has promised not to run confusing or deceptive closing-down sales after the Office of Fair Trading accused it of breaching the rules on misleading advertising. Although the group denied breaking regulations, it has signed an undertaking to not mislead customers.

The OFT announced yesterday that it had received complaints from members of the public that Sports Direct had displayed "closing down" adverts for months at a time. The stores that carried the notices, however, never closed down or were only temporarily shuttered”

 

I suppose this was just naivety as well?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/21/sportsdirectinternational.consumeraffairs

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

Sports Direct has promised not to run confusing or deceptive closing-down sales after the Office of Fair Trading accused it of breaching the rules on misleading advertising. Although the group denied breaking regulations, it has signed an undertaking to not mislead customers.

The OFT announced yesterday that it had received complaints from members of the public that Sports Direct had displayed "closing down" adverts for months at a time. The stores that carried the notices, however, never closed down or were only temporarily shuttered

 

I suppose this was just naivety as well?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/21/sportsdirectinternational.consumeraffairs

 

 

What's that got to do with anything?

[jdckelly]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

 

Spot on.

 

Dekka's a reet cunt though.

no arguement there, ashleys situation would be much better if he had someone half decent at pr in that role rather than llambias

[Guest fraser]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

[Guest fraser]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

[OzzieMandias]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Yeah piss easy, just borrow more money.

[Guest fraser]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Caveat emptor; the first unseen (at the time) indication of Ashley's incompetence and now we can see where that has got us. However, my point is still that the decisions Ashley made (sacking Allardyce, appointing Keegan, sacking Keegan, havering when clarity was needed, appointing and letting Shearer go) were crap and brought us to this pass. All I want is him to behave in a way that increases the value of his investment and not treat the club as a toy; he appears to be doing that.

[Guest secteur2010]

They appear to think we're just a bunch of thick, narrow-minded, fickle-f***s.

 

And quite a few of our fans do very little to dispel that myth.

 

Question is - who are the fickle ones amongst us?

 

I think you'll find that ALL football fans are a fickle bunch. It really doesn't take too much to get the majority of fans back on side, if the terms are right.

[dcmk]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

[OzzieMandias]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

 

Yeah I must have imagined SJH flogging it off quick so someone else could pay their bills.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

 

Increasing his control over his substantial investment & "day job" basically.

[Guest secteur2010]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Caveat emptor; the first unseen (at the time) indication of Ashley's incompetence and now we can see where that has got us. However, my point is still that the decisions Ashley made (sacking Allardyce, appointing Keegan, sacking Keegan, havering when clarity was needed, appointing and letting Shearer go) were crap and brought us to this pass. All I want is him to behave in a way that increases the value of his investment and not treat the club as a toy; he appears to be doing that.

 

In my humbles opinion, I think he was badly advised by people around him. Here we have a bloke who knew zero about football (which begs the question of WHY he bought in to it in the first place), but he was/is a very successful businessman. You don't garner the amount of money  he has made by being a fly by night or a shyster. He obviously has business sense. However, his initial foray in football has been a disaster and I'm 100% sure that little by little he is learning and finding out that football is not your ordinary business.

 

On the subject of NUFC though, my gut feeling is he will put people in place to run the club for him (if he decides to keep it). His business plan for the club is beginning to take shape (i.e. not being a club run on debt - though clearing up Shepherd's mess is going to be long and painful). It'll take time but it'll work.

[Guest malandro]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

 

Yeah I must have imagined SJH flogging it off quick so someone else could pay their bills.

Cameron Hall Developments was struggling at the time, could it be SJH sold up because he needed the money?