Sunderland...

[Guest Wearside]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

So Short has not intention of ever getting his money back? 

 

Of course he will,he became a billionaire by setting up his Lonestar business to buy companies that were struggling and selling them for big profits when they were back on the feet,I expect him to do the same with us at some point.He paid £10m(estimates) for it from Drumaville but it would take a big offer for him to make a profit considering how much he has invested.

[Disco]

If our management had an ounce of nous about them they'd have gotten Bruce in to us before the whole relegation shenanigans IMO.

 

Dave Whelan may have put Brucie off

 

Whelan — who is renaming Wigan’s ground the DW Stadium from next season after his new business venture, through which he has bought the fitness clubs from JJB, his former company — is angered by the behaviour of Ashley, who is a stakeholder in JJB and runs Sports Direct.

 

“I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him,” Whelan said of Ashley. “He’s got what he deserved at Newcastle. Newcastle are a very big club and you don’t go in there and lower all the standards. He turns up wearing a replica top in the boardroom. No class whatsoever. The minute he arrived there and turned up in the boardroom in a replica shirt and jeans and a pair of trainers, the club was gone.”

 

Whelan maintains that there is no chance of Bruce working for Ashley at Newcastle. “I don’t think you will ever get Steve Bruce going to a club that is run the way Mike Ashley runs it,” Whelan said. “He knows he could go and he knows he could go to Newcastle. Would he go? No chance.

 

I don't doubt it but I've never seen such a logical move in football management (in recent times) not even attempt to happen.

[Heron]

Why would anyone want to buy Sunderland AFC?? I really can't get my head around it.

[Thespence]

If our management had an ounce of nous about them they'd have gotten Bruce in to us before the whole relegation shenanigans IMO.

 

Dave Whelan may have put Brucie off

 

Whelan — who is renaming Wigan’s ground the DW Stadium from next season after his new business venture, through which he has bought the fitness clubs from JJB, his former company — is angered by the behaviour of Ashley, who is a stakeholder in JJB and runs Sports Direct.

 

“I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him,” Whelan said of Ashley. “He’s got what he deserved at Newcastle. Newcastle are a very big club and you don’t go in there and lower all the standards. He turns up wearing a replica top in the boardroom. No class whatsoever. The minute he arrived there and turned up in the boardroom in a replica shirt and jeans and a pair of trainers, the club was gone.”

 

Whelan maintains that there is no chance of Bruce working for Ashley at Newcastle. “I don’t think you will ever get Steve Bruce going to a club that is run the way Mike Ashley runs it,” Whelan said. “He knows he could go and he knows he could go to Newcastle. Would he go? No chance.

 

I don't doubt it but I've never seen such a logical move in football management (in recent times) not even attempt to happen.

 

Shep tried to get him once while he was at Brum. I was always keen on pre-SAFC.

[Anderson]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

Neither can Ashley though unless he finds a buyer. I'd imagine it's similar with Short, when he goes to sell he has to sell these 'extra shares' which have been converted from loans so the value of them is added to the value of the club. Similarly to when Ashley tries to sell, the value of the loan will be added to the value of the club. No?

 

Also, I never at one point said Ashley > Short just that you are quick to call him for a similar practise to what you applaud Short for.

[Guest neesy111]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

So Short has not intention of ever getting his money back? 

 

Of course he will,he became a billionaire by setting up his Lonestar business to buy companies that were struggling and selling them for big profits when they were back on the feet,I expect him to do the same with us at some point.He paid £10m(estimates) for it from Drumaville but it would take a big offer for him to make a profit considering how much he has invested.

 

Ellis short will lose a shit load of money at SAFC, why has Quinn's wage been cut by 500k a year ffs.  Money tightening is happening at SAFC, you can't progress as a club because you's are shitty town in Durham still, that only has local reputation hence why Darren Bent decided to fuck off.  No wonder you all jumped on the fucking irish bandwagon, you consider that a european trip which is fucking alien to you's.

 

Cheap tickets and still can't the fans come.  NUFC make twice what SAFC do on a match day despite SAFC having Saint Niall and us having the devil in Ashley.

[brummie]

Never trust someone who says "this is the facts". Ever.

[Anderson]

If our management had an ounce of nous about them they'd have gotten Bruce in to us before the whole relegation shenanigans IMO.

 

Dave Whelan may have put Brucie off

 

Whelan — who is renaming Wigan’s ground the DW Stadium from next season after his new business venture, through which he has bought the fitness clubs from JJB, his former company — is angered by the behaviour of Ashley, who is a stakeholder in JJB and runs Sports Direct.

 

“I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him,” Whelan said of Ashley. “He’s got what he deserved at Newcastle. Newcastle are a very big club and you don’t go in there and lower all the standards. He turns up wearing a replica top in the boardroom. No class whatsoever. The minute he arrived there and turned up in the boardroom in a replica shirt and jeans and a pair of trainers, the club was gone.”

 

Whelan maintains that there is no chance of Bruce working for Ashley at Newcastle. “I don’t think you will ever get Steve Bruce going to a club that is run the way Mike Ashley runs it,” Whelan said. “He knows he could go and he knows he could go to Newcastle. Would he go? No chance.

 

I don't doubt it but I've never seen such a logical move in football management (in recent times) not even attempt to happen.

 

Shep tried to get him once while he was at Brum. I was always keen on pre-SAFC.

 

Was that not because he'd literally been at Brum a couple months? He too was definitely very keen on us.

[Heron]

Never trust someone who says "this is the facts". FACT.

 

 

Hypocritical to say the least.

[Guest VegasToon]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

So Short has not intention of ever getting his money back?   

 

Of course he will,he became a billionaire by setting up his Lonestar business to buy companies that were struggling and selling them for big profits when they were back on the feet,I expect him to do the same with us at some point.He paid £10m(estimates) for it from Drumaville but it would take a big offer for him to make a profit considering how much he has invested.

 

So no different than Ashley...Thank you for participating.

[Guest Wearside]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

Neither can Ashley though unless he finds a buyer. I'd imagine it's similar with Short, when he goes to sell he has to sell these 'extra shares' which have been converted from loans so the value of them is added to the value of the club. Similarly to when Ashley tries to sell, the value of the loan will be added to the value of the club. No?

 

Also, I never at one point said Ashley > Short just that you are quick to call him for a similar practise to what you applaud Short for.

 

No,you are wrong and there is a big difference.

 

Ashley's is a loan that can be called in at any point he wishes and that £111m debt is a debt against NUFC,while Short has converted the debt at SAFC into shares meaning that debt can never be held against us even if things went wrong.

In simple terms NUFC still have a big debt against the name while SAFC don't.

 

Debt is not a major thing though as long as it's managed right,look at Man Utd heavily in debt according to last accounts but it's a 'manageable' debt due to the revenues they have coming in.

[Guest neesy111]

Ellis short will lose a shit load of money at SAFC, why has Quinn's wage been cut by 500k a year ffs.  Money tightening is happening at SAFC, you can't progress as a club because you's are a shitty town in Durham still, that only has local reputation hence why Darren Bent decided to fuck off.  No wonder you all jumped on the fucking irish bandwagon, you consider that a european trip which is fucking alien to you's.

 

Cheap tickets and still can't the fans come.  NUFC make twice what SAFC do on a match day despite SAFC having Saint Niall and us having the devil in Ashley.

[Anderson]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

Neither can Ashley though unless he finds a buyer. I'd imagine it's similar with Short, when he goes to sell he has to sell these 'extra shares' which have been converted from loans so the value of them is added to the value of the club. Similarly to when Ashley tries to sell, the value of the loan will be added to the value of the club. No?

 

Also, I never at one point said Ashley > Short just that you are quick to call him for a similar practise to what you applaud Short for.

 

No,you are wrong and there is a big difference.

 

Ashley's is a loan that can be called in at any point he wishes and that £111m debt is a debt against NUFC,while Short has converted the debt at SAFC into shares meaning that debt can never be held against us even if things went wrong.

In simple terms NUFC still have a big debt against the name while SAFC don't.

 

Debt is not a major thing though as long as it's managed right,look at Man Utd heavily in debt according to last accounts but it's a 'manageable' debt due to the revenues they have coming in.

 

So Ashley has paid off our debt and converted it into a personal loan to the club which he will expect to be returned when the club is sold.

Short on the other hand has paid off your debt and converted into share value which he will expect to be returned when the club is sold.

Sounds like it all comes down to nothing more than being worded differently to me.

[Guest neesy111]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

Neither can Ashley though unless he finds a buyer. I'd imagine it's similar with Short, when he goes to sell he has to sell these 'extra shares' which have been converted from loans so the value of them is added to the value of the club. Similarly to when Ashley tries to sell, the value of the loan will be added to the value of the club. No?

 

Also, I never at one point said Ashley > Short just that you are quick to call him for a similar practise to what you applaud Short for.

 

No,you are wrong and there is a big difference.

 

Ashley's is a loan that can be called in at any point he wishes and that £111m debt is a debt against NUFC,while Short has converted the debt at SAFC into shares meaning that debt can never be held against us even if things went wrong.

In simple terms NUFC still have a big debt against the name while SAFC don't.

 

Debt is not a major thing though as long as it's managed right,look at Man Utd heavily in debt according to last accounts but it's a 'manageable' debt due to the revenues they have coming in.

 

An owner only converts debt to shares when he's trying to flog a business.  Short knows he's made a major fuck up at Sunderland hence the belt tighening and fucking ridiculous daily amount of moaning by St Niall.  Also their isn't going to be a long list of buyers to buy sunderland at this time as well.

 

Small club, decent support.  Mid table team and will never ever be able to progress from that.

[Guest Wearside]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

Neither can Ashley though unless he finds a buyer. I'd imagine it's similar with Short, when he goes to sell he has to sell these 'extra shares' which have been converted from loans so the value of them is added to the value of the club. Similarly to when Ashley tries to sell, the value of the loan will be added to the value of the club. No?

 

Also, I never at one point said Ashley > Short just that you are quick to call him for a similar practise to what you applaud Short for.

 

No,you are wrong and there is a big difference.

 

Ashley's is a loan that can be called in at any point he wishes and that £111m debt is a debt against NUFC,while Short has converted the debt at SAFC into shares meaning that debt can never be held against us even if things went wrong.

In simple terms NUFC still have a big debt against the name while SAFC don't.

 

Debt is not a major thing though as long as it's managed right,look at Man Utd heavily in debt according to last accounts but it's a 'manageable' debt due to the revenues they have coming in.

 

So Ashley has paid off our debt and converted it into a personal loan to the club which he will expect to be returned when the club is sold.

Short on the other hand has paid off your debt and converted into share value which he will expect to be returned when the club is sold.

Sounds like it all comes down to nothing more than being worded differently to me.

 

Other than Ashley can call the debt in well before NUFC is sold,then yes you are right.

 

NUFC's next accounts will be due out shortly and I hope for some posters on here's sake they look favourable towards NUFC after the way you lot have went on about our's.

However these will show you having a season in the Championship and if I was a gambling man they are not going to look pretty especially with a lot of players still on huge wages.

[Incognito]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

Neither can Ashley though unless he finds a buyer. I'd imagine it's similar with Short, when he goes to sell he has to sell these 'extra shares' which have been converted from loans so the value of them is added to the value of the club. Similarly to when Ashley tries to sell, the value of the loan will be added to the value of the club. No?

 

Also, I never at one point said Ashley > Short just that you are quick to call him for a similar practise to what you applaud Short for.

 

No,you are wrong and there is a big difference.

 

Ashley's is a loan that can be called in at any point he wishes and that £111m debt is a debt against NUFC,while Short has converted the debt at SAFC into shares meaning that debt can never be held against us even if things went wrong.

In simple terms NUFC still have a big debt against the name while SAFC don't.

 

Debt is not a major thing though as long as it's managed right,look at Man Utd heavily in debt according to last accounts but it's a 'manageable' debt due to the revenues they have coming in.

 

So Ashley has paid off our debt and converted it into a personal loan to the club which he will expect to be returned when the club is sold.

Short on the other hand has paid off your debt and converted into share value which he will expect to be returned when the club is sold.

Sounds like it all comes down to nothing more than being worded differently to me.

 

Other than Ashley can call the debt in well before NUFC is sold,then yes you are right.

 

NUFC's next accounts will be due out shortly and I hope for some posters on here's sake they look favourable towards NUFC after the way you lot have went on about our's.

However these will show you having a season in the Championship and if I was a gambling man they are not going to look pretty especially with a lot of players still on huge wages.

 

And therefore our figures will reflect that.I'd wager we had more folk through the door than you though.Although I concede,probably less chromosomes.

[Anderson]

Aye but he'd be calling in the debt from himself which would be a pointless exercise unless we start making massive profits which isn't going to happen any time soon.

And everyone knows our accounts are going to be poor for the Championship season. It was the shock of how unexpectedly poor yours were. Our accounts will be from our worst season for years while yours are from your best.

[BlueStar]

Never trust someone who says "this is the facts". FACT.

 

 

Hypocritical to say the least.

 

Thahats dah johke.

[madras]

How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light?

 

Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example.

 

It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy.

 

If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin.

 

So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it?

And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording.

 

Totally and completely, utterly wrong.

 

The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts.

 

I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC.

 

Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate.

 

Neither can Ashley though unless he finds a buyer. I'd imagine it's similar with Short, when he goes to sell he has to sell these 'extra shares' which have been converted from loans so the value of them is added to the value of the club. Similarly to when Ashley tries to sell, the value of the loan will be added to the value of the club. No?

 

Also, I never at one point said Ashley > Short just that you are quick to call him for a similar practise to what you applaud Short for.

 

No,you are wrong and there is a big difference.

 

Ashley's is a loan that can be called in at any point he wishes and that £111m debt is a debt against NUFC,while Short has converted the debt at SAFC into shares meaning that debt can never be held against us even if things went wrong.

In simple terms NUFC still have a big debt against the name while SAFC don't.

 

Debt is not a major thing though as long as it's managed right,look at Man Utd heavily in debt according to last accounts but it's a 'manageable' debt due to the revenues they have coming in.

 

So Ashley has paid off our debt and converted it into a personal loan to the club which he will expect to be returned when the club is sold.

Short on the other hand has paid off your debt and converted into share value which he will expect to be returned when the club is sold.

Sounds like it all comes down to nothing more than being worded differently to me.

 

Other than Ashley can call the debt in well before NUFC is sold,then yes you are right.

 

NUFC's next accounts will be due out shortly and I hope for some posters on here's sake they look favourable towards NUFC after the way you lot have went on about our's.

However these will show you having a season in the Championship and if I was a gambling man they are not going to look pretty especially with a lot of players still on huge wages.

basically we are in a very similar position, one bloke bankrolling us, however whereas we seem to have came out of the far side of the financial fuck up (looks like the club may well stand on it's own feet fiancially this season without the carroll money)....it's up to short how far he's prepared to go. 80% of turnover on wages won't last long when not getting a mssive improvement on the pitch.

[Benwell Lad]

As Bruce has signed an extension to his contract and will be taking tens of millions out of Sundeland will he now be laying down some roots on Wearside or will he continue commuting from north Newcastle ?

 

PS looking at that recent photo in the Sun is he a good bet health wise for a 3 year deal ?

[ikri]

X-Newcastle United chief exec & current SAFC chief exec on those numbers:

 

 

Sunderland's chief executive Steve Walton has shed more light on the club's financial situation following the recent publication of accounts for the year ending 31st July 2010.

 

The most recent accounts show an operating loss of £5m, increasing to £25.5m including player trading, with the club adding ten additional players to the squad on a full-time basis, plus three loan signings.

 

Club owner Mr Ellis Short also converted £19m of loans into shares.

 

An expert in football finance, Walton ran Barclays Bank's football division before joining Sunderland in 2009 and says the club are in healthy financial position and are continuing to reduce external debt.

 

He told safc.com: "I'm really pleased with where the club is at this moment in time.

 

"The headline figures reflect the investment we've made in the squad over the last few years.

 

"Businesses don't get into difficulties because they don't make profits; they get into trouble because they run out of cash, which is a really important distinction that has to be made.

 

"We've been able to sustain this because we've been investing in the squad thanks to our owner investing in us, in terms of giving us the cash to support the purchase of players.

 

"We have a stable position in terms of our ownership and our key management people which is also important from a financial perspective.

 

"Our external term debt is now less than it's been at any time since the takeover by the Drumaville Consortium and is coming down year on year."

 

Walton says the headline figure is misleading as much of the loss is attributed to the process of 'amortisation' of transfer fees.

 

The outlay to acquire a player is spread each year across the term of the player's contract, after which it has zero value in the club's accounts. If the club renews a contract then it gets spread out even longer.

 

For example, a player purchased for £4m on a four-year contract would be recorded in the accounts as costing £1m per year even though the club's may have paid all the £4m in one amount on signing.

 

In addition, home-grown players like Jordan Henderson don't appear in the balance sheet at all!

 

Walton explained: "When you look at the amount which is actually lost in the accounts, most of that is a result of amortisation of players.

 

"There's a big disconnect between cash and profit. The transfer fees of many of our players appear in the last published accounts even though we paid out the cash for them some years ago"

 

He added: "It's also important to remember when we buy players we are also buying assets. If we buy wisely then there is a good chance that they will appreciate in value. This is particularly true with a young squad.

 

"If you look at the most recent accounts the net book value of our players was just over £50m and that was before we spent nearly £20m on Gyan and Sessegnon. By most people's reckoning, our current squad is worth substantially more than that.

 

"You could probably get something near that figure from two or three players, never mind the entire 25-man squad."

 

Meanwhile Walton also says that the club's income levels should ensure that the percentage of turnover taken up by wages falls in the current financial year.

 

That marks part of a planned progression to turn a profit at the operating level and continue the encouraging trend of further reducing external debts.

 

The continued progression of the club on the commercial side is also important to Walton, who already has a good impression of the financial picture for the next set of accounts.

 

"The reason I'm comfortable is because I'm aware of what our figures are going to be for this financial year," he said.

 

"The majority of the numbers are more or less cast in stone. We will be turning over more money this year because the TV deal was better and we've been doing well on the pitch.

 

"Our wages have gone up again, but crucially the percentage of wages to turnover will decrease.

 

"We've received some criticism for the figure being above 80% that certainly won't be the case this time.

 

"We are going to see a journey where we've peaked in terms of the losses and are going forward reducing that loss each year.

 

"I'm not going to say we're not going to make a loss this year because that's not practical in terms of where we are and our development.

 

"Times are tough out there. It's important to keep the business in good health and income streams like this summer's pop concerts will help us."

 

Sunderland are currently seventh in the Barclays Premier League, with Walton and the board working towards establishing the club as a major player in tandem with the efforts of manager Steve Bruce and his coaching staff.

 

Chairman Niall Quinn has highlighted the importance of increased attendances; something the chief executive says would be a "great statement" to the rest of the division exemplifying the positive strides being made by the club in all areas.

 

"I personally believe we're a top-ten club now," he said. "We've played some great football.

 

"Our gates are marginally down, which in my mind is due to the economic climate we're all currently operating in.

 

"They've certainly been affected less than at some of our fellow clubs and we're still seventh in the batting order of attendances in the Premier League.

 

"Niall has been very vocal about more people coming to watch us in the stadium, and he's doing that largely from a footballing point of view because he feels passionately the team have a bigger chance of winning games with a big crowd behind them.

 

"But from a progress point of view, a few more people coming to watch us each week will mean we'll average gates in excess of clubs like Liverpool, which would be a great statement to the football world that Sunderland is a big club which is here to stay in the upper echelons of the division.

 

"I'm a lifelong Sunderland supporter and we all feel the same way. We never want to dream too much because we've had so many false dawns. Well I think it's time to start dreaming."

 

Talk about amortisation reminds me of when bankers try to talk about credit default swaps, they're too complicated for most people to understand (by design) but those clever bankers know what they're talking about so we should trust them.

[jdckelly]

question is for sunderland, with a large loss and a team that has 5 loans as part of its squad how exactly do they plan to find the cash for those 5 players just to stay where they are team wise

[Guest]

I really hope they do a Boro. Spend way beyond their means for a few seasons, perhaps finish top 8 a few years, but eventually realise they can't afford to maintain it and sink to where they belong.

[Raconteur]

question is for sunderland, with a large loss and a team that has 5 loans as part of its squad how exactly do they plan to find the cash for those 5 players just to stay where they are team wise

 

I'd love to see Wearside and RiverWear respond to that, because they conveniently ignore that point when they talk about money being available in the summer...

[Dokko]

question is for sunderland, with a large loss and a team that has 5 loans as part of its squad how exactly do they plan to find the cash for those 5 players just to stay where they are team wise

 

I'd love to see Wearside and RiverWear respond to that, because they conveniently ignore that point when they talk about money being available in the summer...

 

They'll buy a striker for a decent fee, get some of Bent's money for the year paid up and borrow some more off Shorty, then they'll pay £3-4m to loan 5 players. The marquee signing, especially a forward will keep them happy and the fans planning CL football for the season after while the club stays in similar position and Bruce cleans up financially.