Are Mike and Del Boy Forgiven Now?

[OzzieMandias]

I actually kind of long for the days of NE5...

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[wormy]

I actually kind of long for the days of NE5...

 

Be careful what you wish for.

Ok, admittedly it was a bit hasty, I followed that link that someone posted of him still banging on at TT, that was so bad it made me want to punch the laptop. At least it's not reached that stage here... yet.

[mrmojorisin75]

I actually kind of long for the days of NE5...

 

Be careful what you wish for.

Ok, admittedly it was a bit hasty, I followed that link that someone posted of him still banging on at TT, that was so bad it made me want to punch the laptop. At least it's not reached that stage here... yet.

 

what's that link?

[ohmelads]

Way too early to say they're forgiven, we were favourites to come back up because we should never have gone down in the first place. I thought they struck a bit lucky with Hughton. Let's be honest at the time he looked like a cheap appointment and a yes man who was grateful to be in the job - someone who wouldn't ask awkward questions. Most of us expected a fight to get out of the Championship but in the end he cruised it.

 

Fair play they backed him in January and they've done alright in this window, but it's still very early in the season to make a judgement. They have far from redeemed themselves yet - though I will give them credit that they seem to have (touch wood) learned from some of their mistakes. They're not mouthing off to the press on a regular basis or patronising fans and they're giving their manager a fighting chance in the transfer market.

 

But the gut feeling is they are still blagging it and learning as they go along.

[UV]

You’re getting confused. You’re the one who thinks the fact he has yet to take any money out has any bearing on whether or not he wants his loans repaid.

you aren't going to hold him wanting his money back at some point against him are you when he's been effectivly keeping the club going for the last year or two are you ?

That depends on how much of the extra debt we’ve accrued since he bought the club can be attributed to his mistakes. Taking money out of the club to pay for his mistakes would certainly be of dubious morality.

using the same criteria i wonder what you think of shepherd ?

 

Unless you count the stadium extension as a mistake (£45m of the debt), then the remaining debt left at the end of 15 years of Hall & Shepherd was around £25m.

 

In the year prior to Ashley's takeover we were without the advertising revenue that Ashley complains about, we were paying the instalments for players like Owen and Luque that Ashley also complained about, we spent net £10m on new players, and we were also paying interest of £7.5m. In that year the debt increased by £9m. That is the context for the loses in cash terms when Ashley took over.

 

In the first year of Ashley's ownership due to a new deal for prem clubs, TV revenues went up by £18m. If things had continued to be run as they had the previous year then even with another £10m net spend and a slightly increased wage bill the club should have easily broken even or made a cash flow profit and paid back some of the debt.

 

Going from the figures in this post: http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,69123.msg2330046.html#msg2330046

 

As of May this year the debt stands at something like £134m (268-134 cost of club) + £36m overdraft = £170m

That's an increase of £100m in 3 years, or £33m per year, and that's before you even start to look at the quality and depth of the squad when he took over to what it is now.

 

So Ashley has put more debt per year on the club than the old owners racked up through 15 years of mistakes taking us from a club on the brink of the 3rd division to being one of the richest clubs in the world. Please don't try and tell me these losses are due to the mistakes of the previous owners, because the stadium debt had to be paid off, because of some missing advertising revenue, or even because of Michael bloody Owen. They are purely down to how Ashley has run the club and "turned around" the finances (he sure has!).

 

 

Now, at the risk of having an opinion madras, to answer the thread, do you forgive "Mike and Dell Boy" because Hughton fortunately turned out to be a decent manager and got us promoted, and we have brought in a crocked youth prospect, a semi-retired defender, a dutch league sub and an exciting but temperamental prospect on loan to keep us in the premiership? Will you be happy if he uses the extra money the club brings in this year to pay off some of those debts? If we do start paying off those debts this year, will you be happy for the club to continue to do so for the next 5 years until we "achieve a 'break even' financial situation"?

[Guest Roger Kint]

Without wanting to get into this cu-de-sac. Not sure your figures are totally fair.

 

Ashley Total Cost - £268m

Cost of club - £134m

Outstanding club debts paid by Ashley in Year 1 - £70m(see below)

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html

 

He bought a club losing £30m a year and no assets to borrow against - http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

 

This is NOT a defence of Ashley in any way(unless anyone is stupid enough to think simply listing facts constitutes personal opinion) however to suggest any increased debt is solely his fault is a little misleading given the farce he bought(no need to remind me he has himself to blame for not doing DD)

 

[quayside]

You’re getting confused. You’re the one who thinks the fact he has yet to take any money out has any bearing on whether or not he wants his loans repaid.

you aren't going to hold him wanting his money back at some point against him are you when he's been effectivly keeping the club going for the last year or two are you ?

That depends on how much of the extra debt we’ve accrued since he bought the club can be attributed to his mistakes. Taking money out of the club to pay for his mistakes would certainly be of dubious morality.

using the same criteria i wonder what you think of shepherd ?

 

Unless you count the stadium extension as a mistake (£45m of the debt), then the remaining debt left at the end of 15 years of Hall & Shepherd was around £25m.

 

In the year prior to Ashley's takeover we were without the advertising revenue that Ashley complains about, we were paying the instalments for players like Owen and Luque that Ashley also complained about, we spent net £10m on new players, and we were also paying interest of £7.5m. In that year the debt increased by £9m. That is the context for the loses in cash terms when Ashley took over.

 

In the first year of Ashley's ownership due to a new deal for prem clubs, TV revenues went up by £18m. If things had continued to be run as they had the previous year then even with another £10m net spend and a slightly increased wage bill the club should have easily broken even or made a cash flow profit and paid back some of the debt.

 

Going from the figures in this post: http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,69123.msg2330046.html#msg2330046

 

As of May this year the debt stands at something like £134m (268-134 cost of club) + £36m overdraft = £170m

That's an increase of £100m in 3 years, or £33m per year, and that's before you even start to look at the quality and depth of the squad when he took over to what it is now.

 

So Ashley has put more debt per year on the club than the old owners racked up through 15 years of mistakes taking us from a club on the brink of the 3rd division to being one of the richest clubs in the world. Please don't try and tell me these losses are due to the mistakes of the previous owners, because the stadium debt had to be paid off, because of some missing advertising revenue, or even because of Michael bloody Owen. They are purely down to how Ashley has run the club and "turned around" the finances (he sure has!).

 

 

Now, at the risk of having an opinion madras, to answer the thread, do you forgive "Mike and Dell Boy" because Hughton fortunately turned out to be a decent manager and got us promoted, and we have brought in a crocked youth prospect, a semi-retired defender, a dutch league sub and an exciting but temperamental prospect on loan to keep us in the premiership? Will you be happy if he uses the extra money the club brings in this year to pay off some of those debts? If we do start paying off those debts this year, will you be happy for the club to continue to do so for the next 5 years until we "achieve a 'break even' financial situation"?

 

I've really got to hand it to you - you don't give up on this "old board were blameless" stuff. Anyway I'm not going to debate the numbers yet again. I am however interested in your comments about the squad. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the squad was much stronger in quality and depth when Ashley took over, by this I assume you mean the squad that had just come 14th in the league? I can't see that it was that much stronger than what we now have although it contained a few underperforming/non performing "big names" and the wage bill was almost certainly higher.

 

Your description of our latest batch of signings is also interesting. Applying the same criteria how would you describe the likes of Duff, Martins, Sibierski, Olly Bernard, Gooch and Rossi? IIRC these were our incoming players in the season after we had just come 7th in the league.

[madras]

in answer to malandro what i dont forgive them for is kinnear, which was the biggest single mistake in sending us down. (if you really want to go into the finances just retrace that old thread as no new evidence has come to light)

 

 

i'll tell you what i think he should have done with the extra money when i see the accounts.

 

so good of you to paint a picture of me that isn't so, even i said he should've spent in the january we went down but looking at the accounts i could see why he didn't. do you understand that point, I thought he should've but could understand why he didn't.

[UV]

Without wanting to get into this cu-de-sac. Not sure your figures are totally fair.

 

Ashley Total Cost - £268m

Cost of club - £134m

Outstanding club debts paid by Ashley in Year 1 - £70m(see below)

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,59575.0.html

 

He bought a club losing £30m a year and no assets to borrow against - http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

 

This is NOT a defence of Ashley in any way(unless anyone is stupid enough to think simply listing facts constitutes personal opinion) however to suggest any increased debt is solely his fault is a little misleading given the farce he bought(no need to remind me he has himself to blame for not doing DD)

 

 

The £30m loss figure is an accounting loss, and is somewhat misleading. I think a lot of people believe it means we spent £30m more in that year than we received. It doesn't mean that at all. It is massively weighted by the amortisation of the squad value (£25m that year I believe - and £7.5m of that was writing off Luque who wasn't actually sold until the year after). We spent a lot of money on players in the previous years which inflated the value of the squad in the accounts, but unless you keep spending the same amount on players year on year, the value of the squad in the accounts will inevitably reduce and will reflect badly on subsequent years accounts. The valuation of the club will reduce, so this is a "loss", but it doesn't mean that the club is paying out that kind of money to creditors, all it means is that when someone comes along to buy your business you will get less for it.

 

The actual amount we overspent by in that year was around £9m as reflected in the increase in the debt, which as I said previously, due to the increased TV revenues should have meant we were quite capable of being run without incurring further debt in subsequent years.

 

Of course there are issues if the club becomes insolvent, but that is a separate matter, and while it may have been a problem for the previous owners (though not an insurmountable one IMO) the point I am trying to make is that it was not a problem for Ashley, and in no way affected or hindered his running of the club.

 

Although I believe there was actually no necessity to borrow more money, the argument that there were no assets left to borrow against is quite obviously a false one as this statement in the 06-07 accounts shows:

 

At the beginning of 2007 the Group began work on a major refinancing project which was due to be in place by 30 June 2007. However following the aquisition of the Company on 15 June 2007 by SJHL, this project was aborted and the costs incurred to date which would, had the project gone ahead as planned, have been amortised over the period of the new finance have been written off in full in the year.

 

This unplanned immediate cost would also have reflected badly in the accounts produced under Ashley's direction for the last year of the previous ownership.

[UV]

 

I've really got to hand it to you - you don't give up on this "old board were blameless" stuff. Anyway I'm not going to debate the numbers yet again. I am however interested in your comments about the squad. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the squad was much stronger in quality and depth when Ashley took over, by this I assume you mean the squad that had just come 14th in the league? I can't see that it was that much stronger than what we now have although it contained a few underperforming/non performing "big names" and the wage bill was almost certainly higher.

 

Your description of our latest batch of signings is also interesting. Applying the same criteria how would you describe the likes of Duff, Martins, Sibierski, Olly Bernard, Gooch and Rossi? IIRC these were our incoming players in the season after we had just come 7th in the league.

 

I am merely trying to put into context what Ashley bought to counter blanket statements like "he put in the money to keep the club running" that imply we would have made the losses we have under Ashley regardless. In the first couple of years the money he put in paid for his buy in full, sell on credit policy. Last year the money he put in covered some of the cost of relegation.

 

The year we finished 14th, we had the biggest injury crisis I can ever recall at our club. We had a constant 10 or more first teamers injured for over half the season. There were complaints then that we hadn't spent enough money to have a big enough squad. We still finished fairly comfortably nowhere near relegation. I dread to think what kind of team we could put out now if we had a similar injury crisis, and finishing anywhere near 14th this season I believe will require us having a pretty injury free season.

 

The description of the players we have brought in was tongue in cheek of course, but I think people are getting well ahead of themselves in saying how good a transfer window it has been.

[madras]

are you sure the loss was purely on paper and down to player amortisation. would these be included in net debt figures ?

 

if the nufc fianances site is to be believed we had a turnover of 87.1 million for 2007 of which 62.5milliion went on staff and payroll aswell as 7.3million in debt interest alone before the nuts and bolts of running the place.

[Mr Logic]

It was a pretty good transfer window relative to what most of us were expecting.

[Darth Crooks]

That poll is as expected. Although the 11 'lovers' are taking the piss. Was torn between the middle two but went for the former.

[Teasy]

You’re getting confused. You’re the one who thinks the fact he has yet to take any money out has any bearing on whether or not he wants his loans repaid.

you aren't going to hold him wanting his money back at some point against him are you when he's been effectivly keeping the club going for the last year or two are you ?

That depends on how much of the extra debt we’ve accrued since he bought the club can be attributed to his mistakes. Taking money out of the club to pay for his mistakes would certainly be of dubious morality.

using the same criteria i wonder what you think of shepherd ?

 

Unless you count the stadium extension as a mistake (£45m of the debt), then the remaining debt left at the end of 15 years of Hall & Shepherd was around £25m.

 

In the year prior to Ashley's takeover we were without the advertising revenue that Ashley complains about, we were paying the instalments for players like Owen and Luque that Ashley also complained about, we spent net £10m on new players, and we were also paying interest of £7.5m. In that year the debt increased by £9m. That is the context for the loses in cash terms when Ashley took over.

 

In the first year of Ashley's ownership due to a new deal for prem clubs, TV revenues went up by £18m. If things had continued to be run as they had the previous year then even with another £10m net spend and a slightly increased wage bill the club should have easily broken even or made a cash flow profit and paid back some of the debt.

 

Going from the figures in this post: http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,69123.msg2330046.html#msg2330046

 

As of May this year the debt stands at something like £134m (268-134 cost of club) + £36m overdraft = £170m

That's an increase of £100m in 3 years, or £33m per year, and that's before you even start to look at the quality and depth of the squad when he took over to what it is now.

 

So Ashley has put more debt per year on the club than the old owners racked up through 15 years of mistakes taking us from a club on the brink of the 3rd division to being one of the richest clubs in the world. Please don't try and tell me these losses are due to the mistakes of the previous owners, because the stadium debt had to be paid off, because of some missing advertising revenue, or even because of Michael bloody Owen. They are purely down to how Ashley has run the club and "turned around" the finances (he sure has!).

 

The idea that the moment Ashley came in all club losses were his fault is very flawed, I think this quote from NUFC-Finances is fitting here:

 

"In summary what Shepherd left was a club that was losing over £30m a year, had debts of £70m, had no assets they could borrow more money against, and had a set of players on long, lucrative contracts. Ashley can get rid of the debt but the £30m annual losses with over paid players will take longer to sort out."

 

No doubt he fucked things up big time by getting us relegated, but the losses in the first couple of years I'd place mostly on Shepherds back.

[Guest malandro]

in answer to malandro what i dont forgive them for is kinnear, which was the biggest single mistake in sending us down. (if you really want to go into the finances just retrace that old thread as no new evidence has come to light)

 

 

i'll tell you what i think he should have done with the extra money when i see the accounts.

 

so good of you to paint a picture of me that isn't so, even i said he should've spent in the january we went down but looking at the accounts i could see why he didn't. do you understand that point, I thought he should've but could understand why he didn't.

Good of you to imply I was dodging your question when I wasn’t.

 

I too can see why he didn’t spend in January and it wasn’t because he couldn’t have found the money. It was a gamble, as was buying the club without checking the books, appointing JFK, KK, Shearer and Hughton. The future of the club has been entrusted to a roll of the dice far too often and after losing time after time he finally got lucky when an untried caretaker of no repute and a random players meeting led us to promotion. The problem is NUFC has become a wager and the bookie always wins in the end.

 

[madras]

in answer to malandro what i dont forgive them for is kinnear, which was the biggest single mistake in sending us down. (if you really want to go into the finances just retrace that old thread as no new evidence has come to light)

 

 

i'll tell you what i think he should have done with the extra money when i see the accounts.

 

so good of you to paint a picture of me that isn't so, even i said he should've spent in the january we went down but looking at the accounts i could see why he didn't. do you understand that point, I thought he should've but could understand why he didn't.

Good of you to imply I was dodging your question when I wasn’t.

 

I too can see why he didn’t spend in January and it wasn’t because he couldn’t have found the money. It was a gamble, as was buying the club without checking the books, appointing JFK, KK, Shearer and Hughton. The future of the club has been entrusted to a roll of the dice far too often and after losing time after time he finally got lucky when an untried caretaker of no repute and a random players meeting led us to promotion. The problem is NUFC has become a wager and the bookie always wins in the end.

 

do you never worry about where we'd be had he done due dilligence...everything already hocked and who would make up the shortfall and give guarantees to the auditors etc. i don't think we'd have gone under but a leeds wasn't too far off from my basic reading of the accounts etc.

 

he proabably didn't put in as he felt he'd put enough in and if things didn't work out he'd "easy" be able to sell up and cut his losses.

[mrmojorisin75]

What's forgotten on the due diligence part pre-Ashley is that all of the other parties that DID do it were never seen again, and at that time ostensibly in the financial times we should have been a good prospect.

[Guest malandro]

in answer to malandro what i dont forgive them for is kinnear, which was the biggest single mistake in sending us down. (if you really want to go into the finances just retrace that old thread as no new evidence has come to light)

 

 

i'll tell you what i think he should have done with the extra money when i see the accounts.

 

so good of you to paint a picture of me that isn't so, even i said he should've spent in the january we went down but looking at the accounts i could see why he didn't. do you understand that point, I thought he should've but could understand why he didn't.

Good of you to imply I was dodging your question when I wasn’t.

 

I too can see why he didn’t spend in January and it wasn’t because he couldn’t have found the money. It was a gamble, as was buying the club without checking the books, appointing JFK, KK, Shearer and Hughton. The future of the club has been entrusted to a roll of the dice far too often and after losing time after time he finally got lucky when an untried caretaker of no repute and a random players meeting led us to promotion. The problem is NUFC has become a wager and the bookie always wins in the end.

 

do you never worry about where we'd be had he done due dilligence...everything already hocked and who would make up the shortfall and give guarantees to the auditors etc. i don't think we'd have gone under but a leeds wasn't too far off from my basic reading of the accounts etc.

 

he proabably didn't put in as he felt he'd put enough in and if things didn't work out he'd "easy" be able to sell up and cut his losses.

He’d either have paid a lot less for the club and avoided the need for years of austerity measures, or he’d have decided not to buy the club and we wouldn’t have been lumbered with an owner who has caused more angst in three years than the previous lot managed in fifteen.   

 

I know it will be argued that if he hadn’t bought us we would have gone out of business, but it’s not an argument that holds much water. Football clubs are very resilient and also highly sought after; the asking price would have dropped to a point where demand picked up sooner or later.

 

All this assumes the club was in dire financial straits and not as may be the case just in need of a bit of restructuring and some sensible stewardship.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

I know it will be argued that if he hadn’t bought us we would have gone out of business, but it’s not an argument that holds much water. Football clubs are very resilient and also highly sought after; the asking price would have dropped to a point where demand picked up sooner or later.

 

 

So much wrong with this it's not even funny.

[Guest malandro]

I know it will be argued that if he hadnt bought us we would have gone out of business, but its not an argument that holds much water. Football clubs are very resilient and also highly sought after; the asking price would have dropped to a point where demand picked up sooner or later.

 

 

So much wrong with this it's not even funny.

Pray tell

[mrmojorisin75]

I know it will be argued that if he hadnt bought us we would have gone out of business, but its not an argument that holds much water. Football clubs are very resilient and also highly sought after; the asking price would have dropped to a point where demand picked up sooner or later.

 

 

So much wrong with this it's not even funny.

Pray tell

Oh, I don't know...maybe Pompey's owner merrygoround. Or Liverpool - look at all the rich people queuing up to buy them! Not like they're the most successful club in English history or anything stupid like that is it?

 

The argument that it's a good thing that "sooner or later" the price would have dropped so we'd get a buyer is laughable. In fact I'm laughing at you now for saying it.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

No significant football club has went bust in the UK so to suggest we would have had Ashley not bought us is daft in the extreme. We were on very dodgy ground though, but appointing Sam Allardyce suggested to me FS and co were aware that the club couldn't continue in the same vein and that measures were at least being taken to arrest the financial slippery slope we were on. At worst docked points and admin under FS meaning possible relegation... under the "financial saviour" of Ashley though BANG relegation. And I fucking hated FS and couldn't wait to see him gone because he was ruining this club. Not as much as Ashley has done or will continue to do though.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Oh and regardless of how bad our finances are NUFC will never ever go out of existence. Any business with such a committed and loyal 'customer' base guaranteed every year regardless will never run short of would be suitors. That's why Ashley couldn't wait to snap up the club up, even ignoring due diligence, which we have been paying for ever since btw.

[geordiemonster]

No significant football club has went bust in the UK so to suggest we would have had Ashley not bought us is daft in the extreme. We were on very dodgy ground though, but appointing Sam Allardyce suggested to me FS and co were aware that the club couldn't continue in the same vein and that measures were at least being taken to arrest the financial slippery slope we were on. At worst docked points and admin under FS meaning possible relegation... under the "financial saviour" of Ashley though BANG relegation. And I f***ing hated FS and couldn't wait to see him gone because he was ruining this club. Not as much as Ashley has done or will continue to do though.

 

That doesn't mean that it is not going to happen and with the level of debt clubs have now I honestly think its only a matter of time before a big club goes completely out of business.  I think the days of ever increasing transfer fees and wages are rapidly approaching an end and we are going to see a massive contraction in both areas, very soon.  The current spending is unsustainable - imagine if Man City's owners stopped their financial backing, they would be in trouble, very quickly.

 

With regards to Ashley - my feelings have softened a bit towards him recently.  I can see what he is trying to do, but he has gone about it really badly which is why there is so much resentment towards him.  If him and Derek had been more open about what they were doing then I don't think the fans would have reacted as they did.

[OzzieMandias]

Oh and regardless of how bad our finances are NUFC will never ever go out of existence. Any business with such a committed and loyal 'customer' base guaranteed every year regardless will never run short of would be suitors. That's why Ashley couldn't wait to snap up the club up, even ignoring due diligence, which we have been paying for ever since btw.

 

How man, you're blaming the fans!