themanupstairs Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. can't help you there buddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? £57m was to Sir John Hall, a working overdraft of some £36m i think, and £60m capital to keep the club running, then other liabiities. The Sir John Hall bit is true, the rest is open to debate, hence the 10 pages here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? £57m was to Sir John Hall, a working overdraft of some £36m i think, and £60m capital to keep the club running, then other liabiities. The Sir John Hall bit is true, the rest is open to debate, hence the 10 pages here That 57 mill was not to the Halls I don't think? It just came replayable when the Halls handed over their share in NUFC to somebody else (i.c. Ashley). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. 1) Stadium redevelopment 'mortgage' 2) Transfer fees for players already playing for the club (£Xm spread over Y years) 3) The difference between revenue and player wages (plus any other operating costs) 4) An initial player investment when he first took over the club and didn't realise the full extent of the finances (i.e. Smith, Barton, etc.) 5) Barclays overdraft 6) Other short-term loans that Shepherd and co had taken out against the club (underwritten by the training ground, academy, potential MGM casino, etc) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think Ashley's long term plan is to sell the club at a break even point or a slight profit and I believe the club is set-up and being ran for that very purpose. He's lowering the operating costs while raising the revenue which will result in a profit. There will also be cash in the bank, lots of it, and there will be no debts to third parties. We pay transfers up front these days for example. We have a relatively young and small squad that hasn't cost mega money nor takes mega money out in terms of huge salaries, a squad that can be added to for relative little outlay as well as proved with Ba, Marveux etc. The managerial decisions and transfer policy are key factors in this and key inficators. Hughton wanted to retain players with no resale value who were on high wages, Nolan, Barton etc. He also wanted to keep salable assets like Carrol which goes against the club's 'resale value' transfer policy. Ashley had to sack him because Hughton wanted to keep those players and players like them and also add to the squad with proven Premier League players too. Take Sol Campbell for example. The club initialy backed his decision to bring him in but he was being paid a decent wage for sitting on his arse. Hughton would argue that his experience would be worth it along with the fact he could come in if there were injuries but Ashley and co do not think like that. They think about costs and other money factors and not football factors. This is why Pardew was appointed, someone who would agree and work with them and their transfer policy. We'll sell Tiote in January for example and the club will continue to do this selling for a profit until there is enough cash in the bank if you like to entice a would be buyer. That is why the stadium has been 'renamed' and advertising plastered all over the place - to say to a would be buyer look what you're buying, look what you get. You get a debt free club that owes no money to any outside parties. You get a club generating a huge turnover but with low operating costs. A club making a profit. A club with money in the bank (Carroll, Nolan, Enrique, Tiote, season ticket money not just now but for X number of years). A club with its own stadium and state of the art facilities. A club with a prosperous youth system. A club with a young squad with protential. In many ways this is actually a good way to run the club but for us fans we will suffer because we'll keep seeing our best players sold or wanting away and we'll also miss out on many players because we wont pay the wages or fees. Regarding the likes of Cabaye and Tiote and how we are getting these players, perhaps paying money up front is helping. I'd rather have 3.5m up front for example rather than 5m spread over 5 years or something. When will we get sold? That could happen this season or next or maybe 5 years time. Cash in the bank is actually a negative in buy outs. The buyer will in reality pay a premium on the asset value of a company, as cash is part of this you're effectively buying cash at a cost greater than the bank balance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. 1) Stadium redevelopment 'mortgage' 2) Transfer fees for players already playing for the club (£Xm spread over Y years) 3) The difference between revenue and player wages (plus any other operating costs) 4) An initial player investment when he first took over the club and didn't realise the full extent of the finances (i.e. Smith, Barton, etc.) 5) Barclays overdraft 6) Other short-term loans that Shepherd and co had taken out against the club (underwritten by the training ground, academy, potential MGM casino, etc) So, the £140m Ashley loan: what happens to that when he sells? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. 1) Stadium redevelopment 'mortgage' 2) Transfer fees for players already playing for the club (£Xm spread over Y years) 3) The difference between revenue and player wages (plus any other operating costs) 4) An initial player investment when he first took over the club and didn't realise the full extent of the finances (i.e. Smith, Barton, etc.) 5) Barclays overdraft 6) Other short-term loans that Shepherd and co had taken out against the club (underwritten by the training ground, academy, potential MGM casino, etc) So, the £140m Ashley loan: what happens to that when he sells? Gets it back in the form of profit/break-even depending on the price met I presume? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. 1) Stadium redevelopment 'mortgage' 2) Transfer fees for players already playing for the club (£Xm spread over Y years) 3) The difference between revenue and player wages (plus any other operating costs) 4) An initial player investment when he first took over the club and didn't realise the full extent of the finances (i.e. Smith, Barton, etc.) 5) Barclays overdraft 6) Other short-term loans that Shepherd and co had taken out against the club (underwritten by the training ground, academy, potential MGM casino, etc) So, the £140m Ashley loan: what happens to that when he sells? Gets it back in the form of profit/break-even depending on the price met I presume? There wouldn't be a situation whereupon the future owner would buy the club for, say, £100m and then take on the £140m Ashley loan on terms? Thus Mike would make interest on the loan plus whatever profit he's made on the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. 1) Stadium redevelopment 'mortgage' 2) Transfer fees for players already playing for the club (£Xm spread over Y years) 3) The difference between revenue and player wages (plus any other operating costs) 4) An initial player investment when he first took over the club and didn't realise the full extent of the finances (i.e. Smith, Barton, etc.) 5) Barclays overdraft 6) Other short-term loans that Shepherd and co had taken out against the club (underwritten by the training ground, academy, potential MGM casino, etc) So, the £140m Ashley loan: what happens to that when he sells? Gets it back in the form of profit/break-even depending on the price met I presume? There wouldn't be a situation whereupon the future owner would buy the club for, say, £100m and then take on the £140m Ashley loan on terms? Thus Mike would make interest on the loan plus whatever profit he's made on the club? It's possible but not a likely scenario as Ashley would then be running the risk of whoever takes over the club "doing a Leeds/Pompey" and ending up in some form of administration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. 1) Stadium redevelopment 'mortgage' 2) Transfer fees for players already playing for the club (£Xm spread over Y years) 3) The difference between revenue and player wages (plus any other operating costs) 4) An initial player investment when he first took over the club and didn't realise the full extent of the finances (i.e. Smith, Barton, etc.) 5) Barclays overdraft 6) Other short-term loans that Shepherd and co had taken out against the club (underwritten by the training ground, academy, potential MGM casino, etc) So, the £140m Ashley loan: what happens to that when he sells? Gets it back in the form of profit/break-even depending on the price met I presume? There wouldn't be a situation whereupon the future owner would buy the club for, say, £100m and then take on the £140m Ashley loan on terms? Thus Mike would make interest on the loan plus whatever profit he's made on the club? It's possible but not a likely scenario as Ashley would then be running the risk of whoever takes over the club "doing a Leeds/Pompey" and ending up in some form of administration. In that case: wouldn't he get all money the administrators could recoup? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. 1) Stadium redevelopment 'mortgage' 2) Transfer fees for players already playing for the club (£Xm spread over Y years) 3) The difference between revenue and player wages (plus any other operating costs) 4) An initial player investment when he first took over the club and didn't realise the full extent of the finances (i.e. Smith, Barton, etc.) 5) Barclays overdraft 6) Other short-term loans that Shepherd and co had taken out against the club (underwritten by the training ground, academy, potential MGM casino, etc) So, the £140m Ashley loan: what happens to that when he sells? Gets it back in the form of profit/break-even depending on the price met I presume? There wouldn't be a situation whereupon the future owner would buy the club for, say, £100m and then take on the £140m Ashley loan on terms? Thus Mike would make interest on the loan plus whatever profit he's made on the club? It's possible but not a likely scenario as Ashley would then be running the risk of whoever takes over the club "doing a Leeds/Pompey" and ending up in some form of administration. In that case: wouldn't he get all money the administrators could recoup? Not necessarily - with the current rules of football, any debts to other clubs or player wages come first, then the taxman, then ashley (presuming he'll have a charge against the club), then any other creditors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? £57m was to Sir John Hall, a working overdraft of some £36m i think, and £60m capital to keep the club running, then other liabiities. The Sir John Hall bit is true, the rest is open to debate, hence the 10 pages here That 57 mill was not to the Halls I don't think? It just came replayable when the Halls handed over their share in NUFC to somebody else (i.c. Ashley). Ahhh nothing is clear with this is it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Last question: is Ashley a cunt or is he just trying to save his own arse? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliGupter Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think some people in here reckon fans have paid for 10 seasons upfront. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Last question: is Ashley a c*** or is he just trying to save his own arse? Both i'd say, definitely the first one anyhoo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyP Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm getting a headache going through this thread. Can someone clear up a something? Ashley bought the club for £140m. He loaned the club £140m to pay off debts. What were these debts? To whom were they owed? Creditors? Banks? That's cleared that up then. 1) Stadium redevelopment 'mortgage' 2) Transfer fees for players already playing for the club (£Xm spread over Y years) 3) The difference between revenue and player wages (plus any other operating costs) 4) An initial player investment when he first took over the club and didn't realise the full extent of the finances (i.e. Smith, Barton, etc.) 5) Barclays overdraft 6) Other short-term loans that Shepherd and co had taken out against the club (underwritten by the training ground, academy, potential MGM casino, etc) So, the £140m Ashley loan: what happens to that when he sells? Gets it back in the form of profit/break-even depending on the price met I presume? bingo, its basically a debt that should get absorbed by the profit (ahem...) when he sells...Id need to sit down and think about it properly to get it right in my head but basically i still think Ashley overpaid massively and has just been playing catchup ever since. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 How much is all the free advertising worth to Sports Direct each year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sydneycove Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 How much is all the free advertising worth to Sports Direct each year? Technically nothing if Mike Ashley so wishes. He can just not charge sportsdirect say that the advertising is up for sale and knock back any bids for advertising as not being of a high enough value or quote ridiculous prices for the right to sponsor the team. He either gets a ridiculous price or free advertising. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Can someone explain this to me in layman's terms? Is this right: He loaned a company the money to buy the club. Any/some of the profit the club makes goes towards paying off the loan that he used to buy the club in the first place? More or less similar to the Man U fiasco, but done more sneakily. In effect he is gambling on getting is money back over the long term and/or selling the club at a profit.** Is he evil? Yes. Is there evil in the world? There are places the light does not reach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellious Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2010/05/02/newcastle-united-accounts-reveal-111m-debt-79310-26358985/ Does this help anyone. Anyone seen this ? http://www.nufcmismanagement.info/index.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyP Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Tbh i still dont see this as a leveraged buyout a la Man United...we're not paying interest on a loan to a bank...Mike Ashley floated Sports Direct for alot more than he bought us for so he bought us outright, unless ive missed something it seems legit... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ovesbar Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Tbh i still dont see this as a leveraged buyout a la Man United...we're not paying interest on a loan to a bank...Mike Ashley floated Sports Direct for alot more than he bought us for so he bought us outright, unless ive missed something it seems legit... It is not. Why do people still discuss this? Mike Ashley bought the club with his own money, then he paid the clubs debts of with his own money, this as a interest free loan which he wants to get back over time. The only way he will get his money back is by selling the club for a very high price or running the club with profit for a number of years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyP Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Tbh i still dont see this as a leveraged buyout a la Man United...we're not paying interest on a loan to a bank...Mike Ashley floated Sports Direct for alot more than he bought us for so he bought us outright, unless ive missed something it seems legit... It is not. Why do people still discuss this? Mike Ashley bought the club with his own money, then he paid the clubs debts of with his own money, this as a interest free loan which he wants to get back over time. The only way he will get his money back is by selling the club for a very high price or running the club with profit for a number of years. This is technically the best we could have hoped for, barring a ridiculous Man City-esque buyout where debt just doesnt exist...this does mean we may suffer more Carroll-esque problems where we become a selling club but the problem isnt the selling, its the not replacing...the board think we are demanding they spend £35mil, we demand they just replace players going out with quality... but yeah i think there is some knee-jerk to some figures in this thread tbh... 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