Mike Ashley

[Mick]

It is pure bullshit to say Virgin Money paid £10m a year to sponsor NUFC. Virgin Money took over Northern Rock's sponsorship deal. Northern Rock certainly weren't paying £10m a season sponsorship either.

 

Wonga is the biggest shirt sponsor deal NUFC have ever had according to the club. The sponsorship income for each year will be listed in the club accounts.

 

Sponsorship isn't shown on its own unless they mention it in the notes.

[Dave]

Here mate, that sign you have on the side of your van, you should be paying for that!

 

..er, it's my van?

 

That's the worst analogy since henke compared buying Yohan Cabaye to buying a £300 Ford Escort Ghia.

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

It is pure bullshit to say Virgin Money paid £10m a year to sponsor NUFC. Virgin Money took over Northern Rock's sponsorship deal. Northern Rock certainly weren't paying £10m a season sponsorship either.

 

Wonga is the biggest shirt sponsor deal NUFC have ever had according to the club. The sponsorship income for each year will be listed in the club accounts.

 

Sponsorship isn't shown on its own unless they mention it in the notes.

I'll take your word for it.

 

We all know that if Virgin Money had offered more than Wonga to be the shirt sponsor they'd 100% be on our shirt today.

[Mick]

 

I'll take your word for it.

 

We all know that if Virgin Money had offered more than Wonga to be the shirt sponsor they'd 100% be on our shirt today.

 

I'm sure you're right.

[quayside]

Whether SD pay for the advertising at the ground is irrelevant imo. As Colo said above there is a trade off between that and any interest Ashley could charge on his loan. I'm more concerned that the advertising looks sh1t and denigrates a great stadium, the excuse that it is available to other advertisers if they want to pay is utter toss. I suppose it emphasises the complete lack of class that is to be expected.

 

As far as finances between the club and SD are concerned I would like to know more about the retailing arrangerments (shirt sales mainly) between SD and the club. I may have missed it but I don't think it got raised at the recent meeting between the fans and the directors.  It should be.

[kirkwdavis2001]

Here mate, that sign you have on the side of your van, you should be paying for that!

 

..er, it's my van?

 

Who gives a s*** about a van?

 

It's a metaphor, you get my point

[Matt]

Whether SD pay for the advertising at the ground is irrelevant imo. As Colo said above there is a trade off between that and any interest Ashley could charge on his loan.

 

This should not be seen as a trade-off, because the 'not taken a penny out' line wouldn't wash if SD was paying £10m a year and NUFC then paying Ashley £10m a interest. Ashley is somehow portrayed as a benefactor. I would far rather it were all done on arms-length commercial terms.

[quayside]

Whether SD pay for the advertising at the ground is irrelevant imo. As Colo said above there is a trade off between that and any interest Ashley could charge on his loan.

 

This should not be seen as a trade-off, because the 'not taken a penny out' line wouldn't wash if SD was paying £10m a year and NUFC then paying Ashley £10m a interest. Ashley is somehow portrayed as a benefactor. I would far rather it were all done on arms-length commercial terms.

 

I take your point but it is purely a PR issue. Although there is "some" transparency on club finances I think that however the overall structure between the club and Ashley is set up there will always be enough leeway for people to conclude what they want. 

[JH]

We all know that if Virgin Money had offered more than Wonga to be the shirt sponsor they'd 100% be on our shirt today.

 

“The club in their wisdom did the deal with Wonga without talking to us' date=' whether we would have matched that who is to know. These things happen I guess."[/quote']

[loki679]

There is no scam with the SD advertising, its his club, he can literally do owt he likes within legal means and adverting SD even for nowt, is not illegal.

 

Exactly! fucks me off all this bollocks about SD advertising.

 

It's his fucking club for fucks sake!

 

No, he can't just do what he wants.  NUFC and SD are separate legal entities.  SD is also not owned by FMA, it's a publicly traded company.  Even had SD not been a public company there are laws regarding gaining an unfair competitive advantage and company laws that must be adhered to.  I'm not saying he's broken the law or that those laws would necessarily apply here but to say 'it's hizzzz, e can doo wat he wontz' is erroneous at best.

[Happy Face]

Would it placate people if Sports Direct paid £4m a year for the advertising and then Mike Ashley charged the club £4m a year interest on the debt?

 

You usually pay for advertising. But you usually pay interest on debt. Both situations are not the norm.

 

I would be interested in knowing what the market value of our advertising space is and the average interest on a £129m loan. So we can judge the shortfall. I expect we'd be saving on interest rather than losing out on advertising.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

i suspect you might be right

[loki679]

Would it placate people if Sports Direct paid £4m a year for the advertising and then Mike Ashley charged the club £4m a year interest on the debt?

 

You usually pay for advertising. But you usually pay interest on debt. Both situations are not the norm.

 

I would be interested in knowing what the market value of our advertising space is and the average interest on a £129m loan. So we can judge the shortfall. I expect we'd be saving on interest rather than losing out on advertising.

 

 

So people will shut the fuck up about Ashley not taking any interest on his loans and not taking any money out of the club then?  If FMA wants to charge himself interest on the loans he had to provide due to his own incompetence he can, it's up to him.  At least the stadium wouldn't look like such a tacky mess anymore.

[Happy Face]

Would it placate people if Sports Direct paid £4m a year for the advertising and then Mike Ashley charged the club £4m a year interest on the debt?

 

You usually pay for advertising. But you usually pay interest on debt. Both situations are not the norm.

 

I would be interested in knowing what the market value of our advertising space is and the average interest on a £129m loan. So we can judge the shortfall. I expect we'd be saving on interest rather than losing out on advertising.

 

 

So people will shut the fuck up about Ashley not taking any interest on his loans and not taking any money out of the club then?  If FMA wants to charge himself interest on the loans he had to provide due to his own incompetence he can, it's up to him.  At least the stadium wouldn't look like such a tacky mess anymore.

 

Cutting off your nose to spite your face there. Why would you invite that if it would harm the club financially?

 

Ashley, prick that he is, is only responsible for £30m or so of the debt. £90m+ was there when he arrived, and accumulating £6m of interest every year.

[loki679]

Would it placate people if Sports Direct paid £4m a year for the advertising and then Mike Ashley charged the club £4m a year interest on the debt?

 

You usually pay for advertising. But you usually pay interest on debt. Both situations are not the norm.

 

I would be interested in knowing what the market value of our advertising space is and the average interest on a £129m loan. So we can judge the shortfall. I expect we'd be saving on interest rather than losing out on advertising.

 

 

So people will shut the fuck up about Ashley not taking any interest on his loans and not taking any money out of the club then?  If FMA wants to charge himself interest on the loans he had to provide due to his own incompetence he can, it's up to him.  At least the stadium wouldn't look like such a tacky mess anymore.

 

Cutting off your nose to spite your face there. Why would you invite that if it would harm the club financially?

 

Ashley, prick that he is, is only responsible for £30m or so of the debt. £90m+ was there when he arrived, and accumulating £6m of interest every year.

 

I'm not cutting anything off, you're the one who suggested him charging interest on the loans, not me.  I want the club to maximise its revenue streams, you seem content to suck the cock of whichever club official offers it.  Now you can show me a pie chart if you like.

[Happy Face]

Would it placate people if Sports Direct paid £4m a year for the advertising and then Mike Ashley charged the club £4m a year interest on the debt?

 

You usually pay for advertising. But you usually pay interest on debt. Both situations are not the norm.

 

I would be interested in knowing what the market value of our advertising space is and the average interest on a £129m loan. So we can judge the shortfall. I expect we'd be saving on interest rather than losing out on advertising.

 

 

So people will shut the fuck up about Ashley not taking any interest on his loans and not taking any money out of the club then?  If FMA wants to charge himself interest on the loans he had to provide due to his own incompetence he can, it's up to him.  At least the stadium wouldn't look like such a tacky mess anymore.

 

Cutting off your nose to spite your face there. Why would you invite that if it would harm the club financially?

 

Ashley, prick that he is, is only responsible for £30m or so of the debt. £90m+ was there when he arrived, and accumulating £6m of interest every year.

 

I'm not cutting anything off, you're the one who suggested him charging interest on the loans, not me.  I want the club to maximise its revenue streams, you seem content to suck the cock of whichever club official offers it.  Now you can show me a pie chart if you like.

 

It's not cock sucking. It reduces revenue if nufc are paid for sports direct advertising and pay interest on debt at the going rate.

 

Everyone agrees that we would prefer paid advertisers at the club, but Ashley is a prick who places the interests of Sports Direct above those of NUFC.  Given that fact, its better this way than giving him justification for changing the terms of his loan.

 

 

[Guest NobbyOhNobby]

It is pure bullshit to say Virgin Money paid £10m a year to sponsor NUFC. Virgin Money took over Northern Rock's sponsorship deal. Northern Rock certainly weren't paying £10m a season sponsorship either.

 

Wonga is the biggest shirt sponsor deal NUFC have ever had according to the club. The sponsorship income for each year will be listed in the club accounts.

 

Sponsorship isn't shown on its own unless they mention it in the notes.

I'll take your word for it.

 

We all know that if Virgin Money had offered more than Wonga to be the shirt sponsor they'd 100% be on our shirt today.

Virgin Money weren't offered the opportunity to counter bid, they were just told that the club had exercised their option to terminate the deal at the end of last season and that Wonga would be replacing them

[BlueStar]

Someone fill me in here, what's the connection between the loan and the adverts?

 

Why not just say 'Well, he could take the adverts down but then he'd have to take exactly 4.2m out of our transfer fund'?

 

Where's the evidence he's using the free adverts as his 'interest' on the loan? The club certainly aren't saying that, quite the opposite, theyre saying if there were people buying the adverts then the Sports Direct signs wouldn't be there. And I don't think anyone believes if EA Sports buy out all the space we're suddenly going to have to pay interest.

 

What about the stadium naming, was that instead of loan interest as well? Because he wasn't charging interest before we became the Sports Direct Arena, and we're not charging it now we've changed back.

 

Does it stretch to anything else? Like if we complain about Joe Kinnear, "Well, if he wasn't allowed to take money out the club to give his mates a job as a favour, he'd have to charge interest on the loan. Is that what you want?"

[Lotus]

Someone fill me in here, what's the connection between the loan and the adverts?

 

Why not just say 'Well, he could take the adverts down but then he'd have to take exactly 4.2m out of our transfer fund'?

 

Where's the evidence he's using the free adverts as his 'interest' on the loan? The club certainly aren't saying that, quite the opposite, theyre saying if there were people buying the adverts then the Sports Direct signs wouldn't be there. And I don't think anyone believes if EA Sports buy out all the space we're suddenly going to have to pay interest.

 

What about the stadium naming, was that instead of loan interest as well? Because he wasn't charging interest before we became the Sports Direct Arena, and we're not charging it now we've changed back.

 

Does it stretch to anything else? Like if we complain about Joe Kinnear, "Well, if he wasn't allowed to take money out the club to give his mates a job as a favour, he'd have to charge interest on the loan. Is that what you want?"

 

Maybe transfers as well? If we buy players then Big Mash has to charge interest on his loan. Is that what people want??

[mrmojorisin75]

don't think anyone is saying there's a direct connection between the loans and ads, more that if we're going to complain about the club not selling ad space we should also balance that viewpoint out with consideration of the free interest on 129m

 

not unreasonably imo

 

on a rudimentary calculation of 2% interest the club would be due payments of 2.5m quid...not sure what the actual charge would be like

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Doubt it has anything to do with whether we pay interest or not. It doesn't really make sense for Ashley to charge interest, he's just be making it more expensive and long-winded for the club to give him his money back.

 

Obviously the thing about the advertising space being unused is bollocks, they probably haven't even tried to sell it to anyone else. The truth is just that Mike Ashley wants some perks from owning us, and one of those is promoting his appalling sports shop brand. It's not the worst thing an owner's ever done, and the money we lose is probably fairly small. It's just a shame the brand in question is so tacky.

[Happy Face]

Someone fill me in here, what's the connection between the loan and the adverts?

 

They're comparable.

 

If we'd actually spent £4m on transfers, maybe that would be worth comparing and putting up with Sports Direct advertising for too

[Lotus]

I think we had to pay a fee to loan Remy.

[loki679]

We could transfer the loan to Wonga.  The interest would only be £2.25 billion a year then

[BlueStar]

So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner.