Guest bimpy474 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Is it true Ashley didn't know about the loan for the stadium extension as some seem to imply? It's always been my understanding he didn't know it was instantly repayable upon change of ownership, not that he wouldn't have known about it's very existence when he bought the club? Can you give me a source that specifically statez Ashley was unaware of any loans the club had when he purchased it. Find that very hard to believe.. Now, not reading the loan agreement smallprint stating it was instantly repayable I can imagine if you conclude a deal in such a short space of time, but not even checking its balance sheet!? Howay man.. He didn't do due diligence to find out what he was liable for, that was a stupid thing to do and as a business man he should have known better. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/4337474/Newcastle-lack-leadership-says-ex-chairman-Freddy-Shepherd.html Freddie telling it here mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Ashley may have made a few stupid and unpopular football decisions during his tenure, but it would be hard to argue that he hasn't considerably improved the financial side of the business. Are we in less debt now then we were before Genius? He has slowed/lowered the overall running costs, but its to the detriment of the playing side imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 That just states he didn't know it was instantly repayable, as I argued, not that he didn't know the loan itself existed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Our debts have quadrupled in 4 years. I'd say it's very arguable we're better off financially.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 That just states he didn't know it was instantly repayable, as I argued, not that he didn't know the loan itself existed... Cross wires i think mate, we call it a loan now as thats how it appears on the accounts, its the total of all the liabilities Ashley found out about when he took over, he paid them off in a interest free loan as he puts it and we now refer to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 As an aside, the more obvious way that that Ashley can get some money out of the club, is to re-finance. In the same way you would re-mortgage and move your mortgage from Natwest to HSBC, NUFC could move its loan from Mike Ashley to HSBC. Mike Ashley would be repaid whatever the new loan is, and NUFC would owe HSBC Xm. It would also need to pay HSBC interest, and I imagine these large football loans are around 8% or so. Issue is of course in the current market any lender wanting to loan NUFC £140m, they would struggle to get half of that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It was a loan before he took over surely. Are you suggesting it was not on the balance sheet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 That just states he didn't know it was instantly repayable, as I argued, not that he didn't know the loan itself existed... "There is no use him bleating about the debt he inherited," said Shepherd. "Had he bothered to check he would have known that there was a £57-million securitisation settlement required when Sir John Hall sold. I think this bit shows he didn't know about the payment to Sir John, i think that is what you were refering to, think i misunderstood you at first mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It is a bit of a basic mistake to make - in any deal to buy a company which still has debt in place the first thing you check for is a "change of control" provision, lesson number one. It is the sort of thing you can find out within about 10 minutes if you have the document in front of you, it isn't something that needs a team of expensive lawyers working on for weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It is a bit of a basic mistake to make - in any deal to buy a company which still has debt in place the first thing you check for is a "change of control" provision, lesson number one. It is the sort of thing you can find out within about 10 minutes if you have the document in front of you, it isn't something that needs a team of expensive lawyers working on for weeks. And to think it lumbered us with the oaf, unbelievable really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Why do people persist with the notion that the club owes Ashley for the money he spent to acquire it? Because the club needs to be viable financial entity capable of running itself by itself without outside help. The club can not continue to be forever Mike's money pitt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Why do people persist with the notion that the club owes Ashley for the money he spent to acquire it? Because the club needs to be viable financial entity capable of running itself by itself without outside help. The club can not continue to be forever Mike's money pitt. That's not what he said. He's talking about acquisition costs, not running costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Just out of interest, when do people reckon he's going to sell, if at all? When someone has the money and intent to buy... As proved previously... Not as many people around that we'd like to think... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Just out of interest, when do people reckon he's going to sell, if at all? When someone has the money and intent to buy... As proved previously... Not as many people around that we'd like to think... It would take a major idiot to pay more than what Ashley paid originally, which is why I think we're in for a painful long-haul. You can buy another club for half the price and race past us with a few transfers. Why else do you think there was a 10-year season ticket offer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Just out of interest, when do people reckon he's going to sell, if at all? When someone has the money and intent to buy... As proved previously... Not as many people around that we'd like to think... It would take a major idiot to pay more than what Ashley paid originally, which is why I think we're in for a painful long-haul. You can buy another club for half the price and race past us with a few transfers. Why else do you think there was a 10-year season ticket offer? How many other clubs own the stadium and training facilities? I ask because I really don't know. It's not just the club but the total package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Quayside, if the debt held in the holding company is not owed by the club itself then why is it being paid down? The £138m figure owed to MA by SJH Ltd in 2008 reduces to £132m in 2009. How and why? I really hadn''t thought that there had been any reduction in any of the sums owed to Ashley in the published info. But I'll have a look at the accounts tomorrow and get back with an answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Our debts have quadrupled in 4 years. I'd say it's very arguable we're better off financially.. Not so. Our debt has doubled since June 2007. We are better off financially simply because of who we owe the debt to not because of the amount of the debt. See Everton for a current example of what I'm getting at. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Ashley may have made a few stupid and unpopular football decisions during his tenure, but it would be hard to argue that he hasn't considerably improved the financial side of the business. Are we in less debt now then we were before Genius? He has slowed/lowered the overall running costs, but its to the detriment of the playing side imo. We are in more debt now, and he has lowered the running costs but I'm not at all sure our squad immediately pre Ashley (.i.e. end of the 2006/2007 season) was better than what we have now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Why do people persist with the notion that the club owes Ashley for the money he spent to acquire it? Because the club needs to be viable financial entity capable of running itself by itself without outside help. The club can not continue to be forever Mike's money pitt. That's not what he said. He's talking about acquisition costs, not running costs. It doesn't matter what cost it is, at the of the day that's how much the club is in debt and needs to make profit every year so as to reduce the debt and hopefully one day be debt free. In summary the club is a business and it needs to be profitable to stay open for business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Why do people persist with the notion that the club owes Ashley for the money he spent to acquire it? Because the club needs to be viable financial entity capable of running itself by itself without outside help. The club can not continue to be forever Mike's money pitt. That's not what he said. He's talking about acquisition costs, not running costs. It doesn't matter what cost it is, at the of the day that's how much the club is in debt and needs to make profit every year so as to reduce the debt and hopefully one day be debt free. In summary the club is a business and it needs to be profitable to stay open for business. Did you even read my post? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Why do people persist with the notion that the club owes Ashley for the money he spent to acquire it? Because the club needs to be viable financial entity capable of running itself by itself without outside help. The club can not continue to be forever Mike's money pitt. That's not what he said. He's talking about acquisition costs, not running costs. It doesn't matter what cost it is, at the of the day that's how much the club is in debt and needs to make profit every year so as to reduce the debt and hopefully one day be debt free. In summary the club is a business and it needs to be profitable to stay open for business. Did you even read my post? I thought I did but if I miss understood your post then please tell me why ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The club doesn't owe him the "acquisition cost". Just like you buy a car, would the car owe you the price and should pay you back the money? No. However you do expect the car to give you back the value to use at least equal to the price you paid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The club doesn't owe him the "acquisition cost". Just like you buy a car, would the car owe you the price and should pay you back the money? No. However you do expect the car to give you back the value to use at least equal to the price you paid. Don't think you can compare buying a business to buying a car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Why do people persist with the notion that the club owes Ashley for the money he spent to acquire it? Because the club needs to be viable financial entity capable of running itself by itself without outside help. The club can not continue to be forever Mike's money pitt. That's not what he said. He's talking about acquisition costs, not running costs. It doesn't matter what cost it is, at the of the day that's how much the club is in debt and needs to make profit every year so as to reduce the debt and hopefully one day be debt free. In summary the club is a business and it needs to be profitable to stay open for business. Did you even read my post? I thought I did but if I miss understood your post then please tell me why ? The money he spent to acquire the club is gone, he doesn't get that back unless he sells and only then if someone is willing to give him back what he paid (or more). The club doesn't 'owe him' that money at all, but people mention it as though it does, including it in the amount he's spent on the club as though we should be grateful for it. Again, I'm talking purely about the acqusition cost in this instance, nothing else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Nah, just an example. I mean Ashley did expect the club to pay him back the 140m, even though the club is not "liable" to it in accounting sense. 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