NUFC 2009 Accounts

[Taylor Swift]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

Haha, you're either being disingenuous or incredibly naive. If he converts the debt into shares, nothing happens. The club no longer has any debt, but the club's registered capital increases, which means that Ashley can't pull out money from the club. If he wants to pull out money from the club, he'd have to do it as through a dividend, which is subjected to a tax, or as a director getting a loan off the company, which means that he has to pay the company interest, which is again, taxable. By simply having a loan which he's not charging interest for, he can pull out money without paying any taxes.

 

If you take that in the wrong way and simply think that this is a ploy for him to take money out of the company, then you're only partially right, because if whatever he takes out is going to be subjected to a tax, he'd just take out more (or increase his asking price in the event of a sale) to make up for it.

[Happy Face]

There are small differences I think.  Interest can't be charged if there are no loans outstanding....I'm not saying Ashley does plan to start charging interest, but he has the option.  The club can be sold with outstanding loans too allowing him to walk away but keep us indebted.  The debt can then also be called in if the club goes under too.

 

Yeah he could use interest charges to offset an operating profit for tax purposes (on the off chance we ever generate one), but it's a side issue.

 

The club won't be sold with on-demand loans outstanding to Ashley unless the purchaser is the world's biggest numpty.

 

I think that's how he wanted the deal to go down with Moat though......hence the change in terms.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

And has no reason to.

 

[Guest fraser]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

And has no reason to.

 

 

The debt to Ashley arises from his crass decision not to check out which loans were repayable. Effectively he's refinancing out of his own pocket a debt that was easily manageable under its previous arrangement.

 

In the accounting year a loss of £15m (more or less) must be seen in the context of a £5m (more or less) payment for King Kev, shrinking revenues on match-days as a result of people not wanting to go to a club that sacked King Kev and worsening performances on the pitch as a result of sacking King Kev, reduced prize-money as a result of the lower position because King Kev could not guide us to a higher position as he'd been sacked.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

And has no reason to.

 

 

The debt to Ashley arises from his crass decision not to check out which loans were repayable. Effectively he's refinancing out of his own pocket a debt that was easily manageable under its previous arrangement.

 

In the accounting year a loss of £15m (more or less) must be seen in the context of a £5m (more or less) payment for King Kev, shrinking revenues on match-days as a result of people not wanting to go to a club that sacked King Kev and worsening performances on the pitch as a result of sacking King Kev, reduced prize-money as a result of the lower position because King Kev could not guide us to a higher position as he'd been sacked.

 

Why would that make it worthwhile converting the debt to equity?

 

Oh & the bit in bold is funny

[ToonTastic]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

And has no reason to.

 

 

The debt to Ashley arises from his crass decision not to check out which loans were repayable. Effectively he's refinancing out of his own pocket a debt that was easily manageable under its previous arrangement.

 

 

The banks didnt want us to have an overdraft, chances of them being happy for us to continue with the loan with the problems banks were having is very very slim

[Guest fraser]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

And has no reason to.

 

 

The debt to Ashley arises from his crass decision not to check out which loans were repayable. Effectively he's refinancing out of his own pocket a debt that was easily manageable under its previous arrangement.

 

In the accounting year a loss of £15m (more or less) must be seen in the context of a £5m (more or less) payment for King Kev, shrinking revenues on match-days as a result of people not wanting to go to a club that sacked King Kev and worsening performances on the pitch as a result of sacking King Kev, reduced prize-money as a result of the lower position because King Kev could not guide us to a higher position as he'd been sacked.

 

Why would that make it worthwhile converting the debt to equity?

 

Oh & the bit in bold is funny

 

I was referring to the level of debt ascribed to the club in the post above not the banal what is debt what is equity argument. That's not relevant to the performance of the company.

[Guest fraser]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

And has no reason to.

 

 

The debt to Ashley arises from his crass decision not to check out which loans were repayable. Effectively he's refinancing out of his own pocket a debt that was easily manageable under its previous arrangement.

 

 

The banks didnt want us to have an overdraft, chances of them being happy for us to continue with the loan with the problems banks were having is very very slim

 

The club has an overdraft. That's not where the £111m came from.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

And has no reason to.

 

 

The debt to Ashley arises from his crass decision not to check out which loans were repayable. Effectively he's refinancing out of his own pocket a debt that was easily manageable under its previous arrangement.

 

In the accounting year a loss of £15m (more or less) must be seen in the context of a £5m (more or less) payment for King Kev, shrinking revenues on match-days as a result of people not wanting to go to a club that sacked King Kev and worsening performances on the pitch as a result of sacking King Kev, reduced prize-money as a result of the lower position because King Kev could not guide us to a higher position as he'd been sacked.

 

Why would that make it worthwhile converting the debt to equity?

 

Oh & the bit in bold is funny

 

I was referring to the level of debt ascribed to the club in the post above not the banal what is debt what is equity argument. That's not relevant to the performance of the company.

 

You did quote me.

 

And the debt/equity stuff was what the post above mine was about.

[Guest ObiChrisKenobi]

Where you getting these figures from Mick?

 

Somebody who works at the club but didn't give me permission to quote him so he's nameless.  And the income was about £47 million, not £48 million.

 

Any idea what the turnover was?

[Guest fraser]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

And has no reason to.

 

 

The debt to Ashley arises from his crass decision not to check out which loans were repayable. Effectively he's refinancing out of his own pocket a debt that was easily manageable under its previous arrangement.

 

In the accounting year a loss of £15m (more or less) must be seen in the context of a £5m (more or less) payment for King Kev, shrinking revenues on match-days as a result of people not wanting to go to a club that sacked King Kev and worsening performances on the pitch as a result of sacking King Kev, reduced prize-money as a result of the lower position because King Kev could not guide us to a higher position as he'd been sacked.

 

Why would that make it worthwhile converting the debt to equity?

 

Oh & the bit in bold is funny

 

I was referring to the level of debt ascribed to the club in the post above not the banal what is debt what is equity argument. That's not relevant to the performance of the company.

 

You did quote me.

 

And the debt/equity stuff was what the post above mine was about.

 

The quote above disappeared when I quoted; that's the quote that I'm referring to, the one that concerns debt.  I'm sorry it didn't appear; I'll put it down to some odd mod quoting rule that allows context to be entirely lost.

 

Sorry.

[Mick]

Why would that make it worthwhile converting the debt to equity?

 

Oh & the bit in bold is funny

 

It was easily manageable, all we needed to do was keep borrowing and paying out £6 million in interest which was up by £400k on the year before.  We could have borrowed against our sponsorship money, oh wait, we'd already spent that on Michael Owen.

[Mick]

 

Any idea what the turnover was?

 

It's expected to be £47 million but the actual figure will not be known until the end on June when the financial year comes to an end.

[Guest fraser]

Why would that make it worthwhile converting the debt to equity?

 

Oh & the bit in bold is funny

 

It was easily manageable, all we needed to do was keep borrowing and paying out £6 million in interest which was up by £400k on the year before.  We could have borrowed against our sponsorship money, oh wait, we'd already spent that on Michael Owen.

 

Or suffer a catastrophic reduction in revenue by getting relegated.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Am I the only one that doesn't have a clue what anyone's talking about in this thread?   

 

Would anyone care to sum up what all of this means for those of us who don't have a clue about converting debt into equity and who owes who what etc etc.

The club are about £200m in debt, of which about £150m is owed to Mike Ashley. If he wants his money back Newcastle will be run like Happy Shopper for the foreseeable future. He could wipe the debt by using it's value to purchase new shares in the club, but hasn't.

 

And has no reason to.

 

 

The debt to Ashley arises from his crass decision not to check out which loans were repayable. Effectively he's refinancing out of his own pocket a debt that was easily manageable under its previous arrangement.

 

In the accounting year a loss of £15m (more or less) must be seen in the context of a £5m (more or less) payment for King Kev, shrinking revenues on match-days as a result of people not wanting to go to a club that sacked King Kev and worsening performances on the pitch as a result of sacking King Kev, reduced prize-money as a result of the lower position because King Kev could not guide us to a higher position as he'd been sacked.

 

Why would that make it worthwhile converting the debt to equity?

 

Oh & the bit in bold is funny

 

I was referring to the level of debt ascribed to the club in the post above not the banal what is debt what is equity argument. That's not relevant to the performance of the company.

 

You did quote me.

 

And the debt/equity stuff was what the post above mine was about.

 

The quote above disappeared when I quoted; that's the quote that I'm referring to, the one that concerns debt.  I'm sorry it didn't appear; I'll put it down to some odd mod quoting rule that allows context to be entirely lost.

 

Sorry.

 

Ah right, misunderstanding, no bother.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Why would that make it worthwhile converting the debt to equity?

 

Oh & the bit in bold is funny

 

It was easily manageable, all we needed to do was keep borrowing and paying out £6 million in interest which was up by £400k on the year before.  We could have borrowed against our sponsorship money, oh wait, we'd already spent that on Michael Owen.

 

Do you work at RBS?

[Mick]

Or suffer a catastrophic reduction in revenue by getting relegated.

 

That's next years thread .  We were financially shit before Ashley arrived and I can't see how we could have kept on pissing our money up the wall in the manner that we were without somebody with deep pockets to finance it, we've been living beyond our means for years.

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

Do you work at RBS?

 

No but I'm building up a portfolio to help me get in.  Do you think I’m doing OK or do I need a bit more work?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

 

Do you work at RBS?

 

No but I'm building up a portfolio to help me get in.  Do you think Im doing OK or do I need a bit more work?

 

You're probably overdoing the work tbh.

[Mick]

 

You're probably overdoing the work tbh.

 

If something is worth doing then no effort should be spared.

[Guest fraser]

Or suffer a catastrophic reduction in revenue by getting relegated.

 

That's next years thread .   We were financially s*** before Ashley arrived and I can't see how we could have kept on pissing our money up the wall in the manner that we were without somebody with deep pockets to finance it, we've been living beyond our means for years.

 

 

 

Drivel.

 

£15m loss exacerbated by a £5m plus for sacking a former manager. Reduced match-day revenues as result of the sacking, reduced prize-money as well. In a recession. Our overdraft remains the same. We still owe the big amount on the important term. What improved as a result of relegation, which is all we got out of it?

[OzzieMandias]

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Or suffer a catastrophic reduction in revenue by getting relegated.

 

That's next years thread .   We were financially s*** before Ashley arrived and I can't see how we could have kept on pissing our money up the wall in the manner that we were without somebody with deep pockets to finance it, we've been living beyond our means for years.

 

 

 

Drivel.

 

£15m loss exacerbated by a £5m plus for sacking a former manager. Reduced match-day revenues as result of the sacking, reduced prize-money as well. In a recession. Our overdraft remains the same. We still owe the big amount on the important term. What improved as a result of relegation, which is all we got out of it?

 

Have you seen the accounts for the year before that?

[Guest fraser]

Or suffer a catastrophic reduction in revenue by getting relegated.

 

That's next years thread .   We were financially s*** before Ashley arrived and I can't see how we could have kept on pissing our money up the wall in the manner that we were without somebody with deep pockets to finance it, we've been living beyond our means for years.

 

 

 

Drivel.

 

£15m loss exacerbated by a £5m plus for sacking a former manager. Reduced match-day revenues as result of the sacking, reduced prize-money as well. In a recession. Our overdraft remains the same. We still owe the big amount on the important term. What improved as a result of relegation, which is all we got out of it?

 

Have you seen the accounts for the year before that?

 

Yes.

[Guest fraser]

 

 

We still owe the same money. In terms of the overdraft to the same institution; in terms of the debts to Ashley, it's just a different debtor but, largely, under the same conditions. Do you understand this? Do you think that it's been disappeared by the Llambias fairy?