AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I think he wants out ASAP, just maximizing his profits meanwhile until an acceptable offer comes along. Unfortunately I dont think it will happen for a while, seeing as probably wants around 250 mill for us, whereas in reality I reckon prospective buyers are looking to pay maybe half... Maximising his profits? He hasn't made any money from owning us as far as I know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 The original thread is entitled 'NUFC debt' and TT allows you to put a sub title to the thread. I used the phrase LBO to be provocative because I wanted to draw a comparison between paying back a debt that didn't exist before the takeover. There is 140m of debt in the club (it was £77m when Ashely took over) and a 138m of debt in the holding company. If this is just a vehicle to hold capital then there would be no need to transfer income from the club to pay down this debt. This is where the debate is and as far as I am concerned quayside has given an opinion which i give a lot of weight to since it's his job to know these things. However all he has said is that he doesn't see the £6m reduction. In the graph in the OP you can see it. I am prepared to accept that this is misleading or a mistake in that graph but I don't consider it conclusive as am yet to see evidence proving otherwise. It's not an LBO but if club income is being transferred to the holding company then this diverts income from our ability to compete as a club, in exactly the same way Man U have income being diverted to pay off their debt. I would assume it's not the case in much the same way I would assume that SD pay NUFC for their branding at the ground. From what I have read and in the opinion of Swiss rambler too, NUFC paid money to in relation to marketing Ashley's other companies. At £40k it was probably the expense of putting it up. If he's financially favouring SD in that relationship when it's a legitimate source of income for NUFC it's incoherent because shareholders in SD would also bear the cost of the advertising from legitimate marketing budgets. SD shareholders obviously also benefit from it and there are tax benefits. It would seem that maximising the income of NUFC is secondary to SD and/or other concerns. all valid queries, unfortunately, a fair few people have taken your concerns and ran straight off the deep end with the anti-Ashley rhetoric. I think the proof, either way, will become clearer in the next set of accounts. I appreciate you're using the information/graph supplied by Swiss Rambler, but if quayside can't see the debt reduction in the accounts, then where is SR getting his figures from? At least Colocho wasn't here when the thread was started... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyP Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 The problem is that saying he is taking cash out of the club...he cleared alot of the debt effectively, so he is within his power to want the money back...problem is the lying! If they said "look, we're in the financial crapper, we need to be a selling club until we're on an even footing" but then sacking a manager for being in the bottom half and saying we'd spend all the £35mil but being dodgy about it including the contract's wages, it just smacks of someone who isnt used to such scrutiny. The whole situation kinda brings conflicting feelings out of me really Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Christ, this place is like a beacon for the unwashed at times. Are we SURE there hasn't been a board invasion from RTG? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 The original thread is entitled 'NUFC debt' and TT allows you to put a sub title to the thread. I used the phrase LBO to be provocative because I wanted to draw a comparison between paying back a debt that didn't exist before the takeover. There is 140m of debt in the club (it was £77m when Ashely took over) and a 138m of debt in the holding company. If this is just a vehicle to hold capital then there would be no need to transfer income from the club to pay down this debt. This is where the debate is and as far as I am concerned quayside has given an opinion which i give a lot of weight to since it's his job to know these things. However all he has said is that he doesn't see the £6m reduction. In the graph in the OP you can see it. I am prepared to accept that this is misleading or a mistake in that graph but I don't consider it conclusive as am yet to see evidence proving otherwise. It's not an LBO but if club income is being transferred to the holding company then this diverts income from our ability to compete as a club, in exactly the same way Man U have income being diverted to pay off their debt. I would assume it's not the case in much the same way I would assume that SD pay NUFC for their branding at the ground. From what I have read and in the opinion of Swiss rambler too, NUFC paid money to in relation to marketing Ashley's other companies. At £40k it was probably the expense of putting it up. If he's financially favouring SD in that relationship when it's a legitimate source of income for NUFC it's incoherent because shareholders in SD would also bear the cost of the advertising from legitimate marketing budgets. SD shareholders obviously also benefit from it and there are tax benefits. It would seem that maximising the income of NUFC is secondary to SD and/or other concerns. all valid queries, unfortunately, a fair few people have taken your concerns and ran straight off the deep end with the anti-Ashley rhetoric. I think the proof, either way, will become clearer in the next set of accounts. I appreciate you're using the information/graph supplied by Swiss Rambler, but if quayside can't see the debt reduction in the accounts, then where is SR getting his figures from? At least Colocho wasn't here when the thread was started... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 The original thread is entitled 'NUFC debt' and TT allows you to put a sub title to the thread. I used the phrase LBO to be provocative because I wanted to draw a comparison between paying back a debt that didn't exist before the takeover. There is 140m of debt in the club (it was £77m when Ashely took over) and a 138m of debt in the holding company. If this is just a vehicle to hold capital then there would be no need to transfer income from the club to pay down this debt. This is where the debate is and as far as I am concerned quayside has given an opinion which i give a lot of weight to since it's his job to know these things. However all he has said is that he doesn't see the £6m reduction. In the graph in the OP you can see it. I am prepared to accept that this is misleading or a mistake in that graph but I don't consider it conclusive as am yet to see evidence proving otherwise. It's not an LBO but if club income is being transferred to the holding company then this diverts income from our ability to compete as a club, in exactly the same way Man U have income being diverted to pay off their debt. I would assume it's not the case in much the same way I would assume that SD pay NUFC for their branding at the ground. From what I have read and in the opinion of Swiss rambler too, NUFC paid money to in relation to marketing Ashley's other companies. At £40k it was probably the expense of putting it up. If he's financially favouring SD in that relationship when it's a legitimate source of income for NUFC it's incoherent because shareholders in SD would also bear the cost of the advertising from legitimate marketing budgets. SD shareholders obviously also benefit from it and there are tax benefits. It would seem that maximising the income of NUFC is secondary to SD and/or other concerns. That's quite a short term view surely? At the end of the day if using NUFC as a giant advertising board is the sole aim, then it would be counter productive to be associated with a mediocre club I would have thought. I think it's more likely Ashley just wants to cut his losses and will sell at the first decent offer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I think he wants out ASAP, just maximizing his profits meanwhile until an acceptable offer comes along. Unfortunately I dont think it will happen for a while, seeing as probably wants around 250 mill for us, whereas in reality I reckon prospective buyers are looking to pay maybe half... Maximising his profits? He hasn't made any money from owning us as far as I know. More like minimizing his losses atm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
polpolpol Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 From The Guardian: Relegation to the Championship cost Newcastle £33.5m of revenues. Costs were cut by £23.6m but at the same time Barclays sought repayment of £25m of loans. That dual impact of reduced revenues and squeezed finance would have killed most other clubs, but, housed within Mike Ashley's £1.6bn-a-year turnover MASH Holdings that also contains Sports Direct, Newcastle survived. Ashley advanced £38m that year to ensure the Magpies a smooth rebound to the top flight. Things have clearly improved. Last month Barclays loaned Newcastle their season's Premier League monies in advance, having apparently also extended their overdraft in March. Growing debt is normally a sign of distress; Newcastle's paradox is that the level of their external debt is a thermometer for their on-pitch health. Increasing overdrafts? Money loaned in advance? Why on earth would we do that? I'd think this must be bullshit, if it wasn't so banal that it wouldn't be worth making up! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 From The Guardian: Relegation to the Championship cost Newcastle £33.5m of revenues. Costs were cut by £23.6m but at the same time Barclays sought repayment of £25m of loans. That dual impact of reduced revenues and squeezed finance would have killed most other clubs, but, housed within Mike Ashley's £1.6bn-a-year turnover MASH Holdings that also contains Sports Direct, Newcastle survived. Ashley advanced £38m that year to ensure the Magpies a smooth rebound to the top flight. Things have clearly improved. Last month Barclays loaned Newcastle their season's Premier League monies in advance, having apparently also extended their overdraft in March. Growing debt is normally a sign of distress; Newcastle's paradox is that the level of their external debt is a thermometer for their on-pitch health. Increasing overdrafts? Money loaned in advance? Why on earth would we do that? I'd think this must be bullshit, if it wasn't so banal that it wouldn't be worth making up! The numbers quoted are correct, they are taken from the 2010 accounts. Can't say much about this bit. It is either made up or has come from a "club source" : "Last month Barclays loaned Newcastle their season's Premier League monies in advance, having apparently also extended their overdraft in March." 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