Are Mike and Del Boy Forgiven Now?

[morpeth mag]

I don't think the Halls would have sold their stake for £35m  never mind £17.5m.  A good is worth what someone is willing to pay and the Halls knew someone would come along eventually and pay too much.

[Guest malandro]

Somebody could pay you £2m for a Fray Bentos pie, doesn’t mean that's it what its worth. It just means the buyer had more a lot more money than sense and the vendor has no morals.

[OzzieMandias]

So the club was worth only £35 million by the time the last lot had finished with it?

[Guest malandro]

It was a hypothetical figure used to illustrate a principle. Namely that by buying in a hurry, money that could have gone into the club went into the pockets of FF and SJH.

 

Do you agree that Ashley paid too much? 

 

[Guest neesy111]

It was a hypothetical figure used to illustrate a principle. Namely that by buying in a hurry, money that could have gone into the club went into the pockets of FF and SJH.

 

Do you agree that Ashley paid too much? 

 

 

He didn't do due diligence, if he had he would of offered SJH and FS less. I would of valued the club at £100M + the debt.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

It was a hypothetical figure used to illustrate a principle. Namely that by buying in a hurry, money that could have gone into the club went into the pockets of FF and SJH.

 

Do you agree that Ashley paid too much? 

 

 

He didn't do due diligence, if he had he would of offered SJH and FS less. I would of valued the club at £100M + the debt.

 

Have you done due diligence?

[Teasy]

Not that many seasons ago we were regular UEFA competitors and the occasional CL Qualifiers, made Cup Finals and Semi Finals and had a team capable of providing the 'top' teams with a good game home and away. Now the expectation has been lowered sufficiently enough that a net spend of a couple of million and an expectation os survival in the Premier will be good enough.

 

Thats how far we've fallen. I won't forgive Ashley and his cronies and will celebrate if/when a new owner arrives (providing they have enough wonga to make us compete once again).

We weren't flying high when he took over tbf.  Plus looking at the accounts then w'd have had to either have a massive firesale at somepoint in the next couple of seasons or be in administration.

 

Very likely. Although there are still some who think everything would have been alright if the previous regime had stayed in charge I cannot see how.

 

When you consider that in the summer of 2007 the credit crunch was about a year away, the club had just racked up a loss of £30 million and all our debt was owed to external lenders a takeover was a godsend. Ashley bought a club that was technically insolvent with a team that had limped to 14th place in the league. That he subsequently grossly mismanaged his asset can't really be disputed - but then so had the previous regime. Most football club owners/boards of directors are unpopular. Their mistakes are never forgotten and they don't do what the fans want most of the time. Ashley probably won't ever be truly liked or trusted by the majority. Shepherd was regarded with contempt by most fans even during the good years of SBR, its the way of the world.

He paid £135m for a club you tell us was technically insolvent. An idiotic move for which we’ve been paying the price ever since.

 

Sort of - but some of what the club has been paying for has been a direct result of poor decisions by Ashley and/or his posse since the takeover.

 

The initial sale was a very bad deal for Ashley and a fantastic deal for the previous owners - other possible buyers had been in and had a good look at it (one of them even completed due diligence) but no one bit presumably because they did not like what they saw. There was no one else around who seemed to want to buy it until Ashley did so without having much of an idea of what he was buying. But the question remains as to how the club could have financed itself out of the mess it was in without a new owner who could pay for past errors (as well as those of his own making).

And it’s a question that can never be answered. However, if Ashley had done his homework and paid a sensible sum for the club (say £35m) he could have used the other £100m to clear the debts at the time of purchase. Thereby achieving in a stroke what we are now apparently hoping to achieve in about four years time.

 

The scale and impact of Ashley rash purchase can’t be underestimated. It was the mother of all fuck ups.

 

 

Paying off all the debts immediately wouldn't have allowed us to break even, not sure why you think it would have.  Our debt interest payments were only a fraction of the amount we lost in that first season.

[Guest malandro]

Not that many seasons ago we were regular UEFA competitors and the occasional CL Qualifiers, made Cup Finals and Semi Finals and had a team capable of providing the 'top' teams with a good game home and away. Now the expectation has been lowered sufficiently enough that a net spend of a couple of million and an expectation os survival in the Premier will be good enough.

 

Thats how far we've fallen. I won't forgive Ashley and his cronies and will celebrate if/when a new owner arrives (providing they have enough wonga to make us compete once again).

We weren't flying high when he took over tbf.  Plus looking at the accounts then w'd have had to either have a massive firesale at somepoint in the next couple of seasons or be in administration.

 

Very likely. Although there are still some who think everything would have been alright if the previous regime had stayed in charge I cannot see how.

 

When you consider that in the summer of 2007 the credit crunch was about a year away, the club had just racked up a loss of £30 million and all our debt was owed to external lenders a takeover was a godsend. Ashley bought a club that was technically insolvent with a team that had limped to 14th place in the league. That he subsequently grossly mismanaged his asset can't really be disputed - but then so had the previous regime. Most football club owners/boards of directors are unpopular. Their mistakes are never forgotten and they don't do what the fans want most of the time. Ashley probably won't ever be truly liked or trusted by the majority. Shepherd was regarded with contempt by most fans even during the good years of SBR, its the way of the world.

He paid £135m for a club you tell us was technically insolvent. An idiotic move for which weve been paying the price ever since.

 

Sort of - but some of what the club has been paying for has been a direct result of poor decisions by Ashley and/or his posse since the takeover.

 

The initial sale was a very bad deal for Ashley and a fantastic deal for the previous owners - other possible buyers had been in and had a good look at it (one of them even completed due diligence) but no one bit presumably because they did not like what they saw. There was no one else around who seemed to want to buy it until Ashley did so without having much of an idea of what he was buying. But the question remains as to how the club could have financed itself out of the mess it was in without a new owner who could pay for past errors (as well as those of his own making).

And its a question that can never be answered. However, if Ashley had done his homework and paid a sensible sum for the club (say £35m) he could have used the other £100m to clear the debts at the time of purchase. Thereby achieving in a stroke what we are now apparently hoping to achieve in about four years time.

 

The scale and impact of Ashley rash purchase cant be underestimated. It was the mother of all f*** ups.

 

 

Paying off all the debts immediately wouldn't have allowed us to break even, not sure why you think it would have.  Our debt interest payments were only a fraction of the amount we lost in that first season.

Because the five year break even target doesn’t pertain to operating costs? We should be there or there about this season with the extra TV money. It has to be a reference to paying off the debts.

[Teasy]

You should wait until you see the accounts where we break even before you say that.  I mean I don't think you'll be far off if we look at revenue vs running costs for the season but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll break even.

 

Also the losses in the last few years could have created any debt we now have (that's certainly the case with the clubs overdraft for instance).  Plus there's the fact that we owed large sums of money for players when Ashley arrived.  Apparently we've moved to paying all transfer fees up front but who knows when past transfers will finally be paid off.

 

By the way, I can't remember so this is a genuine question here, have the club actually said anything about a plan to break even five years from now?  Or was this the plan they put in place when Ashley arrived?

[fredbob]

It was a hypothetical figure used to illustrate a principle. Namely that by buying in a hurry, money that could have gone into the club went into the pockets of FF and SJH.

 

Do you agree that Ashley paid too much? 

 

 

Not that I want to delve head first into finances I dont particularly understand but as a PLC isnt the price of the club relative to the share prices? Would I be right in saying that the share prices were reflective of the finacial situation we were in? As far as i'm aware £134m for one of the top 20 richest clubs in the world was a decent price for all involved, only for the actual fianacial situation of the club to be even worse than imagined.

 

Probably bollocks mind.

[quayside]

It was a hypothetical figure used to illustrate a principle. Namely that by buying in a hurry, money that could have gone into the club went into the pockets of FF and SJH.

 

Do you agree that Ashley paid too much? 

 

 

Not that I want to delve head first into finances I dont particularly understand but as a PLC isnt the price of the club relative to the share prices? Would I be right in saying that the share prices were reflective of the finacial situation we were in? As far as i'm aware £134m for one of the top 20 richest clubs in the world was a decent price for all involved, only for the actual fianacial situation of the club to be even worse than imagined.

 

Probably bollocks mind.

 

You are right to a point, but the share price was not putting out a value of £130 million until the word got out that there was a potential buyer in the market. Up until that point the market value was way less (as in about half)  the eventual selling price.

[OzzieMandias]

You should wait until you see the accounts where we break even before you say that.  I mean I don't think you'll be far off if we look at revenue vs running costs for the season but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll break even.

 

Also the losses in the last few years could have created any debt we now have (that's certainly the case with the clubs overdraft for instance).  Plus there's the fact that we owed large sums of money for players when Ashley arrived.  Apparently we've moved to paying all transfer fees up front but who knows when past transfers will finally be paid off.

 

By the way, I can't remember so this is a genuine question here, have the club actually said anything about a plan to break even five years from now?  Or was this the plan they put in place when Ashley arrived?

 

IIRC, it was a statement after the last time Ashley gave up trying to find a buyer for the club.

[Guest malandro]

You should wait until you see the accounts where we break even before you say that.  I mean I don't think you'll be far off if we look at revenue vs running costs for the season but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll break even.

 

Also the losses in the last few years could have created any debt we now have (that's certainly the case with the clubs overdraft for instance).  Plus there's the fact that we owed large sums of money for players when Ashley arrived.  Apparently we've moved to paying all transfer fees up front but who knows when past transfers will finally be paid off.

 

By the way, I can't remember so this is a genuine question here, have the club actually said anything about a plan to break even five years from now?  Or was this the plan they put in place when Ashley arrived?

There’s been a few five years plans, but the last one was mentioned in the no capital outlay statement “The Board have therefore structured a five year plan in which the ultimate goal will be to ensure that the club is run at a break even manner by the year 2015/2016”

 

This official club statement also  talks about “an estimated loss for 2009/2010 of £32.5 million”. Given that Lambias claimed relegation cost the club £50m, it seems reasonable to assume our return to the PL should be worth a similar amount - giving the club a projected profit of nearly £18m this season. Plus there’s also the extra money from the new shirt sponsor and kit deals, not to mention the money from selling off the naming rights to the ground .

 

With a current outlay of about £5m on transfers fees and probably a slight increase in wages - if we’re not breaking even this season I’d like to know where the money is going.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/2010-05-09nufc-statement.html

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6904319.ece

 

[OzzieMandias]

You should wait until you see the accounts where we break even before you say that.  I mean I don't think you'll be far off if we look at revenue vs running costs for the season but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll break even.

 

Also the losses in the last few years could have created any debt we now have (that's certainly the case with the clubs overdraft for instance).  Plus there's the fact that we owed large sums of money for players when Ashley arrived.  Apparently we've moved to paying all transfer fees up front but who knows when past transfers will finally be paid off.

 

By the way, I can't remember so this is a genuine question here, have the club actually said anything about a plan to break even five years from now?  Or was this the plan they put in place when Ashley arrived?

There’s been a few five years plans, but the last one was mentioned in the no capital outlay statement “The Board have therefore structured a five year plan in which the ultimate goal will be to ensure that the club is run at a break even manner by the year 2015/2016”

 

This official club statement also  talks about “an estimated loss for 2009/2010 of £32.5 million”. Given that Lambias claimed relegation cost the club £50m, it seems reasonable to assume our return to the PL should be worth a similar amount - giving the club a projected profit of nearly £18m this season. Plus there’s also the extra money from the new shirt sponsor and kit deals, not to mention the money from selling off the naming rights to the ground .

 

With a current outlay of about £5m on transfers fees and probably a slight increase in wages - if we’re not breaking even this season I’d like to know where the money is going.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/2010-05-09nufc-statement.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6904319.ece

 

 

And you'll find out when they publish the accounts.

 

The biggest item in those is always the wage bill, which is conspicuously absent from your back-of-an-envelope suppositions.

 

Butt's gone but we've just added wages for Campbell, Tioté and Ben Arfa, who are all probably on a decent whack, plus Gosling and Perch.

[Guest malandro]

You should wait until you see the accounts where we break even before you say that.  I mean I don't think you'll be far off if we look at revenue vs running costs for the season but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll break even.

 

Also the losses in the last few years could have created any debt we now have (that's certainly the case with the clubs overdraft for instance).  Plus there's the fact that we owed large sums of money for players when Ashley arrived.  Apparently we've moved to paying all transfer fees up front but who knows when past transfers will finally be paid off.

 

By the way, I can't remember so this is a genuine question here, have the club actually said anything about a plan to break even five years from now?  Or was this the plan they put in place when Ashley arrived?

There’s been a few five years plans, but the last one was mentioned in the no capital outlay statement “The Board have therefore structured a five year plan in which the ultimate goal will be to ensure that the club is run at a break even manner by the year 2015/2016”

 

This official club statement also  talks about “an estimated loss for 2009/2010 of £32.5 million”. Given that Lambias claimed relegation cost the club £50m, it seems reasonable to assume our return to the PL should be worth a similar amount - giving the club a projected profit of nearly £18m this season. Plus there’s also the extra money from the new shirt sponsor and kit deals, not to mention the money from selling off the naming rights to the ground .

 

With a current outlay of about £5m on transfers fees and probably a slight increase in wages - if we’re not breaking even this season I’d like to know where the money is going.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/2010-05-09nufc-statement.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6904319.ece

 

 

And you'll find out when they publish the accounts.

 

The biggest item in those is always the wage bill, which is conspicuously absent from your back-of-an-envelope suppositions.

 

Butt's gone but we've just added wages for Campbell, Tioté and Ben Arfa, who are all probably on a decent whack, plus Gosling and Perch.

I appreciate this doesn’t fit in with your head in the sand agenda, but the figures are from the club. I haven’t made them up. Obviously if we had access to the books we wouldn’t need to make calculations on the back of an envelope, but since we don’t working with the information the club provide is all that’s on offer.

 

More importantly, you should note that I’m backing up my interpretation of our current financial position with evidence, whereas as your nit picking guff is based on nothing at all.

 

[thomas]

Unfortunately, without the context of the remaining finances contained in the books and the details that make up numbers like £50m and £32.5m, the information the club provides is in effect meaningless. 

 

So, back of the envelope or not, the only rational answer or position to hold on any question about our monetary well being is "we'll have to wait until they publish the accounts"

[OzzieMandias]

You should wait until you see the accounts where we break even before you say that.  I mean I don't think you'll be far off if we look at revenue vs running costs for the season but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll break even.

 

Also the losses in the last few years could have created any debt we now have (that's certainly the case with the clubs overdraft for instance).  Plus there's the fact that we owed large sums of money for players when Ashley arrived.  Apparently we've moved to paying all transfer fees up front but who knows when past transfers will finally be paid off.

 

By the way, I can't remember so this is a genuine question here, have the club actually said anything about a plan to break even five years from now?  Or was this the plan they put in place when Ashley arrived?

There’s been a few five years plans, but the last one was mentioned in the no capital outlay statement “The Board have therefore structured a five year plan in which the ultimate goal will be to ensure that the club is run at a break even manner by the year 2015/2016”

 

This official club statement also  talks about “an estimated loss for 2009/2010 of £32.5 million”. Given that Lambias claimed relegation cost the club £50m, it seems reasonable to assume our return to the PL should be worth a similar amount - giving the club a projected profit of nearly £18m this season. Plus there’s also the extra money from the new shirt sponsor and kit deals, not to mention the money from selling off the naming rights to the ground .

 

With a current outlay of about £5m on transfers fees and probably a slight increase in wages - if we’re not breaking even this season I’d like to know where the money is going.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/2010-05-09nufc-statement.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6904319.ece

 

 

And you'll find out when they publish the accounts.

 

The biggest item in those is always the wage bill, which is conspicuously absent from your back-of-an-envelope suppositions.

 

Butt's gone but we've just added wages for Campbell, Tioté and Ben Arfa, who are all probably on a decent whack, plus Gosling and Perch.

I appreciate this doesn’t fit in with your head in the sand agenda, but the figures are from the club. I haven’t made them up. Obviously if we had access to the books we wouldn’t need to make calculations on the back of an envelope, but since we don’t working with the information the club provide is all that’s on offer.

 

More importantly, you should note that I’m backing up my interpretation of our current financial position with evidence, whereas as your nit picking guff is based on nothing at all.

 

 

What "evidence", you numpty? The only figure that came from the club in anything even remotely resembling an official form is an estimation of our losses last season. From this "evidence" you are extrapolating the entire financial position?

[OzzieMandias]

Unfortunately, without the context of the remaining finances contained in the books and the details that make up numbers like £50m and £32.5m, the information the club provides is in effect meaningless. 

 

So, back of the envelope or not, the only rational answer or position to hold on any question about our monetary well being is "we'll have to wait until they publish the accounts"

 

Precisely.

[Guest malandro]

Unfortunately, without the context of the remaining finances contained in the books and the details that make up numbers like £50m and £32.5m, the information the club provides is in effect meaningless. 

 

So, back of the envelope or not, the only rational answer or position to hold on any question about our monetary well being is "we'll have to wait until they publish the accounts"

I’m making an estimate of our profit and loss situation based on the best information available. If you have any information that shows my extrapolation is totally wide of the mark, let’s be having it (as Delia might say).

[thomas]

I think there is too little information provided to make a meaningful estimate mate. It's not personal and if you want to continue a discussion on it that's fine, all I'm saying is there's too many questions around those simple figures provided. We know del boy lies; books lie less.

[Teasy]

There’s been a few five years plans, but the last one was mentioned in the no capital outlay statement “The Board have therefore structured a five year plan in which the ultimate goal will be to ensure that the club is run at a break even manner by the year 2015/2016”

 

This official club statement also  talks about “an estimated loss for 2009/2010 of £32.5 million”. Given that Lambias claimed relegation cost the club £50m, it seems reasonable to assume our return to the PL should be worth a similar amount - giving the club a projected profit of nearly £18m this season. Plus there’s also the extra money from the new shirt sponsor and kit deals, not to mention the money from selling off the naming rights to the ground .

 

With a current outlay of about £5m on transfers fees and probably a slight increase in wages - if we’re not breaking even this season I’d like to know where the money is going.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/2010-05-09nufc-statement.html

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6904319.ece

 

 

The loss mentioned for the Championship season will have been cushioned by the sale of players and wages will have increased several million this season.  But like people are saying its all too much of a guesstimate to base any solid conclusions on, lets wait until we see the accounts for this current season.

[quayside]

You should wait until you see the accounts where we break even before you say that.  I mean I don't think you'll be far off if we look at revenue vs running costs for the season but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll break even.

 

Also the losses in the last few years could have created any debt we now have (that's certainly the case with the clubs overdraft for instance).  Plus there's the fact that we owed large sums of money for players when Ashley arrived.  Apparently we've moved to paying all transfer fees up front but who knows when past transfers will finally be paid off.

 

By the way, I can't remember so this is a genuine question here, have the club actually said anything about a plan to break even five years from now?  Or was this the plan they put in place when Ashley arrived?

Theres been a few five years plans, but the last one was mentioned in the no capital outlay statement The Board have therefore structured a five year plan in which the ultimate goal will be to ensure that the club is run at a break even manner by the year 2015/2016

 

This official club statement also  talks about an estimated loss for 2009/2010 of £32.5 million. Given that Lambias claimed relegation cost the club £50m, it seems reasonable to assume our return to the PL should be worth a similar amount - giving the club a projected profit of nearly £18m this season. Plus theres also the extra money from the new shirt sponsor and kit deals, not to mention the money from selling off the naming rights to the ground .

 

With a current outlay of about £5m on transfers fees and probably a slight increase in wages - if were not breaking even this season Id like to know where the money is going.

 

http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/2010-05-09nufc-statement.html

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6904319.ece

 

 

I think the £50 million Llambias was talking about was the drop in income as a result of not being in the Premiership. Based on known and published financial information for recent years a loss of £32.5 million sounds about right for 2009/2010. There were some on here who thought we'd make a profit last season but that's totally impossible. This year revenue will probably be back up to around £90 to £100 million and its simply a matter of where our costs will land. During our last Premiership season our costs were £124 million (excluding profits on selling players) but we will have trimmed the wage bill down from £71 million since then.

[Guest malandro]

There is the parachute payment to take into account, which was about £12m and using my much maligned ready reckoning puts us on course for break even this season, just.

 

The thing is if we’re not breaking even this season what’s going to change over the next four years. Unless we get into Europe our revenues are unlikely to increase by much, which leaves further reducing the wage bill or increasing ticket prices as the only realistic option. The accounts might not come out until June 2012, but that doesn’t mean the subject doesn’t matter.

 

[Teasy]

There is the parachute payment to take into account, which was about £12m and using my much maligned ready reckoning puts us on course for break even this season, just.

 

The thing is if we’re not breaking even this season what’s going to change over the next four years. Unless we get into Europe our revenues are unlikely to increase by much, which leaves further reducing the wage bill or increasing ticket prices as the only realistic option. The accounts might not come out until June 2012, but that doesn’t mean the subject doesn’t matter.

 

 

Finally paying off all the transfer fee's fat Fred left behind maybe, I don't know it all seems quite odd really.

 

"Ensuring that the club is run at a break even manner by the year 2015/2016" may even mean they want a set amount of profit set aside each year that can be used for transfers to ensure that even if they need extra players they still break even.  Like you say it doesn't make sense as far as simply breaking even before any possible transfer fee's and if its about debt then whoever worded it is an idiot, so its probably best not to make any assumptions about it.

[Tooj]

How many five year plans are we on now?