Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Arsenal fans probably sound a lot like us, at the minute. Probably a bit more 'urban', but, y'know. And with a lot gayer hair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Your sentiment is bang on but the harsh reality is the fan's are spending their money on his business. That's their prerogative. Any money coming into NUFC belongs to Ashley alone by virtue of his shareholding. I'm not questioning the legality of what he's doing, but from a ethical and moral point of view it's reprehensible. Paying off club debt at a similar rate to that which we'd only be servicing the interest on them if they were from banks is reprehensible? Really? I'd f***ing love for the cash to be splashed on signings. As a supporter, the team we end up with is the most important thing, but as long as we have a decent side at the end of the window, him clearing some of the debt doesn't seem that ethically reprehensible or morally bankrupt in the scheme of things. You're twisting my words sir. If his intention is to pay off the debt and neglect the squad in process I feel that he should inform the fans and not pull the wool over our eyes by having his cronies say we are going to buy 3 strikers etc. He hasn't promised us anything in terms of players, but I think we can all agree that if we exit the window another man down and pretty much sod all in then Kinnear, and even more so Ashley, will deserve a good kicking. Whether we are paying off debt or not at that point doesn't really matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Keeping on to our better players was one of the few things I was hopeful of this window. It sort of netted out the need to bring someone in for CM position. I guess in some ways with Sissoko and Anita available to partner Tiote we could be ok to start with, but beyond that we don't have much. We seem to struggle to part with cash at the best of times given that we badly need another striker and potentially a left midfielder, adding the need for a CM with 10 days left of the transfer window is bit of a disaster. Be interesting to hear what Kinnear's got to say if this goes south. I'm sure our only targets are not just Bent and Gomis since apart from Remy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmonkey Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Being a bit dim here no doubt, but I don't get business sometimes. Let's say Ashley bought NUFC for £150m. That £150m was paid to the shareholders at the time (Hall/Shepherd/other shareholders). Am I reading things right in that Ashley has attached that £150m to the club as a debt owed to him? If so, how does that even work? I'd understand if he'd just straight up purchased debentures or preference shares from NUFC, and therefore the club owed him money (for receiving his £150m), but how does NUFC owe Ashley the cost of him buying NUFC's shares? It's not like the money went into the club. Or is it a weird technicality where instead of shares+goodwill worth £150m, he has shares worth £1 and £150m in a loan? If it's this, why do it like this - to avoid amortization of goodwill? Confusing as f***. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 All seems the wrong way round. Surely the buying club should be the ones flying in to talk to us not the other way round? The other day I saw a tweet about Roma's people flying to London to discuss Lamela with Spurs. The whole business is backwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Being a bit dim here no doubt, but I don't get business sometimes. Let's say Ashley bought NUFC for £150m. That £150m was paid to the shareholders at the time (Hall/Shepherd/other shareholders). Am I reading things right in that Ashley has attached that £150m to the club as a debt owed to him? If so, how does that even work? I'd understand if he'd just straight up purchased debentures or preference shares from NUFC, and therefore the club owed him money (for receiving his £150m), but how does NUFC owe Ashley the cost of him buying NUFC's shares? It's not like the money went into the club and it used it. Confusing as f***. No, He's just refusing to take a loss on what he paid by setting his asking price accordingly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Being a bit dim here no doubt, but I don't get business sometimes. Let's say Ashley bought NUFC for £150m. That £150m was paid to the shareholders at the time (Hall/Shepherd/other shareholders). Am I reading things right in that Ashley has attached that £150m to the club as a debt owed to him? If so, how does that even work? I'd understand if he'd just straight up purchased debentures or preference shares from NUFC, and therefore the club owed him money (for receiving his £150m), but how does NUFC owe Ashley the cost of him buying NUFC's shares? It's not like the money went into the club. Or is it a weird technicality where instead of shares+goodwill worth £150m, he has shares worth £1 and £150m in a loan? If it's this, why do it like this - to avoid amortization of goodwill? Confusing as f***. IIRC Ashley paid off the clubs debt and that is what the club owes him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Being a bit dim here no doubt, but I don't get business sometimes. Let's say Ashley bought NUFC for £150m. That £150m was paid to the shareholders at the time (Hall/Shepherd/other shareholders). Am I reading things right in that Ashley has attached that £150m to the club as a debt owed to him? If so, how does that even work? I'd understand if he'd just straight up purchased debentures or preference shares from NUFC, and therefore the club owed him money (for receiving his £150m), but how does NUFC owe Ashley the cost of him buying NUFC's shares? It's not like the money went into the club. Or is it a weird technicality where instead of shares+goodwill worth £150m, he has shares worth £1 and £150m in a loan? If it's this, why do it like this - to avoid amortization of goodwill? Confusing as f***. IIRC Ashley paid off the clubs debt and that is what the club owes him. Correct and it's held interest free. And we owe him so much for that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmonkey Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Being a bit dim here no doubt, but I don't get business sometimes. Let's say Ashley bought NUFC for £150m. That £150m was paid to the shareholders at the time (Hall/Shepherd/other shareholders). Am I reading things right in that Ashley has attached that £150m to the club as a debt owed to him? If so, how does that even work? I'd understand if he'd just straight up purchased debentures or preference shares from NUFC, and therefore the club owed him money (for receiving his £150m), but how does NUFC owe Ashley the cost of him buying NUFC's shares? It's not like the money went into the club. Or is it a weird technicality where instead of shares+goodwill worth £150m, he has shares worth £1 and £150m in a loan? If it's this, why do it like this - to avoid amortization of goodwill? Confusing as f***. IIRC Ashley paid off the clubs debt and that is what the club owes him. Isn't that specific element only around £100m though? IIRC from the reports we've had, the club supposedly owes him £260m or close to that? So the excess would be what he paid for the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Being a bit dim here no doubt, but I don't get business sometimes. Let's say Ashley bought NUFC for £150m. That £150m was paid to the shareholders at the time (Hall/Shepherd/other shareholders). Am I reading things right in that Ashley has attached that £150m to the club as a debt owed to him? If so, how does that even work? I'd understand if he'd just straight up purchased debentures or preference shares from NUFC, and therefore the club owed him money (for receiving his £150m), but how does NUFC owe Ashley the cost of him buying NUFC's shares? It's not like the money went into the club. Or is it a weird technicality where instead of shares+goodwill worth £150m, he has shares worth £1 and £150m in a loan? If it's this, why do it like this - to avoid amortization of goodwill? Confusing as f***. Ashley bought NUFC through a series of companies. The one which bought NUFC was called St James Holdings Ltd (and may well still be). SJHL is in turn owned by MASH Holdings, which also owns his shares in Sports Direct. So to buy the club he lent the money to SJHL which then used it to pay the former shareholders. However subsequent to that Ashley lent more money to SJHL, which then lent that to NUFC to repay various debt and to improve the club's perilous cash position (and did so again when we were relegated). So the amount showing as a debt to NUFC does not relate to the purchase price, whereas at SJHL the debt shown reflects both purchase price and subsequent cash injections. As for why do it as (virtually) all debt, this is simply to give more flexibility around tax as the interest is tax-deductible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I thought the debt was an additional thing that he inherited when he bought the club? As in the club owed money to someone else and Ashley paid that off (on top of what he paid for the club) and instead of the club owing money to a bank it now owes that money to Ashley. The benefit being that the debt now won't continually accumulate interest? Not massively sure, but that's always been my understanding of the situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Being a bit dim here no doubt, but I don't get business sometimes. Let's say Ashley bought NUFC for £150m. That £150m was paid to the shareholders at the time (Hall/Shepherd/other shareholders). Am I reading things right in that Ashley has attached that £150m to the club as a debt owed to him? If so, how does that even work? I'd understand if he'd just straight up purchased debentures or preference shares from NUFC, and therefore the club owed him money (for receiving his £150m), but how does NUFC owe Ashley the cost of him buying NUFC's shares? It's not like the money went into the club. Or is it a weird technicality where instead of shares+goodwill worth £150m, he has shares worth £1 and £150m in a loan? If it's this, why do it like this - to avoid amortization of goodwill? Confusing as f***. Ashley bought NUFC through a series of companies. The one which bought NUFC was called St James Holdings Ltd (and may well still be). SJHL is in turn owned by MASH Holdings, which also owns his shares in Sports Direct. So to buy the club he lent the money to SJHL which then used it to pay the former shareholders. However subsequent to that Ashley lent more money to SJHL, which then lent that to NUFC to repay various debt and to improve the club's perilous cash position (and did so again when we were relegated). So the amount showing as a debt to NUFC does not relate to the purchase price, whereas at SJHL the debt shown reflects both purchase price and subsequent cash injections. As for why do it as (virtually) all debt, this is simply to give more flexibility around tax as the interest is tax-deductible. He should take a big heap of responsibilty in the fact we got relegated. Never mind have the money back what he ploughed in to the club subsequently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I thought the debt was an additional thing that he inherited when he bought the club? As in the club owed money to someone else and Ashley paid that off (on top of what he paid for the club) and instead of the club owing money to a bank it now owes that money to Ashley. The benefit being that the debt now won't continually accumulate interest? Not massively sure, but that's always been my understanding of the situation. This is correct. He paid off the debt which was owed to the banks and transferred it to the holding company and leverages zero interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Never understand why people attempt to scrutinize and analyse how much we're supposedly in debt to him. At the end of the day, he can say the club owes him whatever he wants. There's no point in trying to stick a figure on it, it's basically tantamount to Ashley's right pocket owing his left pocket £xm. No point worrying about it, we'll always be 'in debt' to him until someone offers him what he sees as a fair price for the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Arsenal target Yohan Cabaye is not on the brink of joining Paris Saint-Germain, a source close to the player has told ESPN. Arsenal saw a bid of £12 million for Cabaye rejected by Newcastle on Monday, although the player was left out of the Magpies' squad for their 4-0 loss at Manchester City. Newcastle boss Alan Pardew was particularly scathing about the timing of the offer, as the Gunners look to bolster their squad before the close of the transfer window on September 2. It was reported by the Independent and Daily Mail on Wednesday that PSG could scupper Arsenal's attempts to land the France international, who signed on Tyneside for around £3 million from Lille in 2011. Cabaye is understood to be keen on a move to Emirates Stadium with negotiations ongoing, amid reports Newcastle are seeking nearer £20 million for his services. http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1529312/arsenal-target-yohan-cabaye-not-close-psg-move?cc=5901 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Would rather he went to PSG than Arsenal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Don't think it needs saying tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Never understand why people attempt to scrutinize and analyse how much we're supposedly in debt to him. At the end of the day, he can say the club owes him whatever he wants. There's no point in trying to stick a figure on it, it's basically tantamount to Ashley's right pocket owing his left pocket £xm. No point worrying about it, we'll always be 'in debt' to him until someone offers him what he sees as a fair price for the club. it's always baffled me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainhaircut Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Chantome on loan to Toulouse. Opens up a spot for Cabaye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Chantome on loan to Toulouse. Opens up a spot for Cabaye. Blanc really does want Cabaye, possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Chantome on loan to Toulouse. Opens up a spot for Cabaye. Blanc really does want Cabaye, possible. Cabaye's going from Planc to Blanc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Chantome on loan to Toulouse. Opens up a spot for Cabaye. Blanc really does want Cabaye, possible. pity Blanc doesn't have much in a say in the matter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Chantome on loan to Toulouse. Opens up a spot for Cabaye. Blanc really does want Cabaye, possible. pity Blanc doesn't have much in a say in the matter You're very clued up, are you a itk ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 He's never struck me as good enough to be a PSG signing right now. Could be wrong like, they could back him for a massive improvement in form, or just want someone French as a symbol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 He'll have enough around him at PSG to be able to perform a lot better than he has here. He'll not have anywhere near the responsibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now