Tachikoma Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Wait, what does SJH get out of any of this if the above is true? Hasn't he basically just given Mike Ashley the club for free? Err, no. The shareholders got 138m from Ashley still, its just that the club is paying Ashley back everything he paid them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 We've gone over this years ago. It's like watching deathly hallows, turning the person next to you and going "so, this voldemort's a bad guy, right? " Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ovesbar Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 "In spite of this, the club’s previous excesses have resulted in significant debt of £282 million, though only £150 million is held in the books of the football club with the remaining £132 million held in the holding company.The vast majority of this debt represents loans from Mike Ashley of £243 million, but there is also a bank overdraft of £36 million, which is a significant increase on the prior year balance of £1 million. Since the 2009 year-end, Ashley advanced a further £25.5 million to keep the club ticking over in the Championship, so his total investment in the club now stands at £268 million, represented by £132 million to buy the club, £70 million to repay loans and £66 million working capital." http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/newcastle-uniteds-finances-in-black-and.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Umm, no. Ashley paid SJH and Shepherd a sum of money to buy the club and assume all of its debts. His mistake was not realizing that the debt had to be paid back immediately, which is why Ashley had to lend money to the club. He has invest 200m+ into the club. That's not something that can be doubted. He's probably trying to recoup a bit of that money, but if he sells for below 200m then he'll have made a loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Wait, what does SJH get out of any of this if the above is true? Hasn't he basically just given Mike Ashley the club for free? Err, no. The shareholders got 138m from Ashley still, its just that the club is paying Ashley back everything he paid them. No. Not even fucking close to reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Could be wrong but I think some people are confusing St. James' Holdings with Sir John Hall when they see SJH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachikoma Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Wait, what does SJH get out of any of this if the above is true? Hasn't he basically just given Mike Ashley the club for free? Err, no. The shareholders got 138m from Ashley still, its just that the club is paying Ashley back everything he paid them. No. Not even fucking close to reality. I actually posted before I read yours, so <_< Wouldn't have bothered if I did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 there's an awful lot of SJH going on in this thread and i fear some are confused over Sir John Hall and St James Holdings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest H09 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I don't think he's trying to pay for his own take over with the club. The figure is put on the accounts to protect his own investments and mean that no matter what when the club is sold he gets any money he put in back. It's a nice way of avoiding the fact that the clubs value has depreciated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Umm, no. Ashley paid SJH and Shepherd a sum of money to buy the club and assume all of its debts. His mistake was not realizing that the debt had to be paid back immediately, which is why Ashley had to lend money to the club. He has invest 200m+ into the club. That's not something that can be doubted. He's probably trying to recoup a bit of that money, but if he sells for below 200m then he'll have made a loss. But the clubs debts are larger than they were because of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Just for clarity... http://www.companycheck.co.uk/company/06254688 Company Information The status of ST JAMES HOLDINGS LIMITED recorded at Companies house is: Active ST JAMES HOLDINGS LIMITED was first registered at Companies House on 21/05/2007 as a "Private Limited with share capital" company, registration number 06254688. This company has not yet filed an annual return stating their SIC code or description of their activities. Registered office address UNIT A BROOK PARK EAST, SHIREBROOK NG20 8RY (Find all company directors at NG20 8RY open new window) Directors Mr Michael James Wallace Ashley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrenchWilliam Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 If you're all assuming the scenario is: 1. Ashley "lends" SJH 138 million 2. SJH buys club for 138 million. Transfers debt to club. 3. Gives club to Ashley for $0.00 4. Club revenue pays down 138m debt Where does MA get any money out of it? I don't know if the club pays him a salary, but even if it's a big six figure one, it doesn't seem like ti'd justify the above carry on for that alone. Because if he sells the club for 150 million, its a profit Well, yeah, but only 12m. And so what? calculate again mate, he didn't spend a penny to buy the club in this scenario , he used the club's money to buy out the club, it mean he got the club free, any money earn will be his profit He spent his own money to buy the club. Whether it was done through a holding company, and whether the debt is on the books of the holding company and/or the club is largely irrelevant. It's his business so whether he chooses to put it as a debt on the club balance sheet, pay it off in chunks, pay it off now is up to him. It all boils down to the same thing really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest H09 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It is an "interest free" loan and there are no signs that any money has been used to pay it back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rainforest Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Im absolutely wank with finances, so excuse me if I read thing wrong.... but basically The very arguement some Ashley apologists live by - the fact that he is giving us an interest-free loan - is actually us paying down the loan for him, in time giving him ownership of Newcastle United without spending a single penny? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrenchWilliam Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Im absolutely wank with finances, so excuse me if I read thing wrong.... but basically The very arguement some Ashley apologists live by - the fact that he is giving us an interest-free loan - is actually us paying down the loan for him, in time giving him ownership of Newcastle United without spending a single penny? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 If you're all assuming the scenario is: 1. Ashley "lends" SJH 138 million 2. SJH buys club for 138 million. Transfers debt to club. 3. Gives club to Ashley for $0.00 4. Club revenue pays down 138m debt Where does MA get any money out of it? I don't know if the club pays him a salary, but even if it's a big six figure one, it doesn't seem like ti'd justify the above carry on for that alone. Because if he sells the club for 150 million, its a profit Well, yeah, but only 12m. And so what? calculate again mate, he didn't spend a penny to buy the club in this scenario , he used the club's money to buy out the club, it mean he got the club free, any money earn will be his profit He spent his own money to buy the club. Whether it was done through a holding company, and whether the debt is on the books of the holding company and/or the club is largely irrelevant. It's his business so whether he chooses to put it as a debt on the club balance sheet, pay it off in chunks, pay it off now is up to him. It all boils down to the same thing really. It would be that simple if the club had created all of the debts on there own but he's added £138m to the clubs debt which wasn't there before he bought it. That's whats so bad about this not whether he chooses to pay it back or not or makes a profit on sale. Well in my eyes anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 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? That is half right. He also paid 140m in CASH to Shepherd and the Halls for the club, so even if his initial loan is paid back through profits that the club makes, there is still the initial capital cost of 140m. I think his total investment in the club is around 280m. If he makes a 40m profit for the past year and uses that to reduce the debt, then his net investment in the club will still be north of 200m, which means that if he sells for anything less than that, he'll have made a loss. And for what it's worth, when you invest almost 300m in anything, you expect returns every year. He's obviously not had any return on his investment over the past 4 years, so there is an opportunity cost to factor into it. A rough estimate of his investment so far is probably around 350m (without taking into account last year's profits). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty_Lash Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Yes Ashley is a prick but this site is getting ridiculous at the moment. I think that people should stop posting their ridiculous take on the finances of the club (when they clearly don't know what they are talking about) and using it as yet another reason to slag off Ashley. We all get it and we all agree that he is a Twat but some of the posts re: 'Ashley making massive profits out of selling the club after buying it for free' are just doing my head in. But hey why not sensationalise the fuck out of the situation.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ovesbar Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 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? He spent 130+ million of his money to buy the club. Then he had to repay loans the previous owners had at the amount of around 70 million, and spend 66 million to keep the club going. He did this by loaning the club around 150 million from his own pocket. The first sum he will only get back if he sells the club, the second sum the club will have to repay him, but with no interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachikoma Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Im absolutely wank with finances, so excuse me if I read thing wrong.... but basically The very arguement some Ashley apologists live by - the fact that he is giving us an interest-free loan - is actually us paying down the loan for him, in time giving him ownership of Newcastle United without spending a single penny? No. I'm guessing that was how it looked to him when he first bought the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Im absolutely w*** with finances, so excuse me if I read thing wrong.... but basically The very arguement some Ashley apologists live by - the fact that he is giving us an interest-free loan - is actually us paying down the loan for him, in time giving him ownership of Newcastle United without spending a single penny? No. Why not ? If he gets all debts repaid by never buying another player then he has the club for no expense, like the Glazers. It's not like a normal sale of a club where the money is spend and never seen again, he wants it back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 More fool the fat cunt for buying summik he had no knowledge of. Stupid cunt what he is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rainforest Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Im absolutely w*** with finances, so excuse me if I read thing wrong.... but basically The very arguement some Ashley apologists live by - the fact that he is giving us an interest-free loan - is actually us paying down the loan for him, in time giving him ownership of Newcastle United without spending a single penny? No. sorry in that case , good thing I study law and not economics! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 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? He spent 130+ million of his money to buy the club. Then he had to repay loans the previous owners had at the amount of around 70 million, and spend 66 million to keep the club going. He did this by loaning the club around 150 million from his own pocket. The first sum he will only get back if he sells the club, the second sum the club will have to repay him, but with no interest. Ok this kinda explains my last question. But is there anything to stop him getting the first sum back before he sells the club? 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