Ryan_Taylor Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 He's a fucking fat wanker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Yet some on here would have you believe he's not made a penny off us. Serious question - so far do you think he's made money out of owning the club? And if so how? He's getting millions of pounds' worth of worldwide exposure for his main interest (which coincidentally has increased in value by over 700% since he bought NUFC) via probably the world's most popular sporting event, for free. Just that. I just can't see that his ownership of us has had much to do with the growth of SD. If you look at the Sports Direct annual report you can see that he has virtually bought the entire UK market which accounts for more than 90% of their business. They basically own the UK market as a result of buying up the major brands and elimating the competition. The profit they made from international business was only about £11 million (total SD profits were about £290 million). To put it in perspective the SD international profit in 2013 was about 5% of what he has currently invested in us. Their international business is peanuts (relatively) and fwiw so far none of it comes from the Far East. Makes you wonder why he does it then. Just for a laugh perhaps. That is certainly possible. A "vanity project" was always one of the contenders. The best scenario for us is that at some point soon he does actually decide to launch Sports Direct on the Far Eastern market and does decide to use us to help him. I'm sorry but if that is the case - the man actively and deliberately damaging the club's prospects for no reason other than to massage his own ego (this is surely even worse than using it to further Sports Direct) - then it only makes your continued defence of him and his actions even more staggering. was it a defence of ashley or an objective appraisal ? It seems like its not good enough just to dislike Ashley or see the mistakes you believe he's made, absolutely everything has to be negative or you're part of his defence league. I'm not trying to have a go at anyone, but it does feel like that on here sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Refinancing the debt with Barclays wasn't an option. They called it in and in so doing took a lot of risk off their books. In June 2007 the club was technically insolvent, by somewhere between £80million and £90 million from memory. Why would anyone lend us anything in those circumstances? The credit crunch was big at the time as well and banks were crapping themselves. Ashley had to cough up. No one would lend much on our balance sheet. The main thing that has been achieved under Ashley is some sort of financial stability on a year on year basis but we are still insolvent if he calls his debt in. Thats why he has to guarantee not to do so every year, and that guarantee is recorded in the accounts. how does it benefit him to keep the 100m loan (or whatever it is) as a debt to the club rather than just writing it off and him then demanding it as part of any potential sale price? genuine question to be honest, he's not gaining interest on the money or anything as it's gone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Documented note payable to Mike Ashley so he has maximum equity stake and can prove to any potential buyer the value of the club includes the payment of interest free debt to MASH? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Documented note payable to Mike Ashley so he has maximum equity stake and can prove to any potential buyer the value of the club includes the payment of interest free debt to MASH? that would still exist in the accounts if he writes it off no? also he owns the club entirely so he can set any price he sees fit regardless of what is in the accounts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 never mind actually, pretty obvious when i'm awake Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Documented note payable to Mike Ashley so he has maximum equity stake and can prove to any potential buyer the value of the club includes the payment of interest free debt to MASH? I bet the tubby mother fucker would accept payment in mash too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Does he drive a white Porsche Cayenn?.....see one outside SJP reg MA 9......thought he'd have a space inside! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Yet some on here would have you believe he's not made a penny off us. Serious question - so far do you think he's made money out of owning the club? And if so how? He's getting millions of pounds' worth of worldwide exposure for his main interest (which coincidentally has increased in value by over 700% since he bought NUFC) via probably the world's most popular sporting event, for free. Just that. I just can't see that his ownership of us has had much to do with the growth of SD. If you look at the Sports Direct annual report you can see that he has virtually bought the entire UK market which accounts for more than 90% of their business. They basically own the UK market as a result of buying up the major brands and elimating the competition. The profit they made from international business was only about £11 million (total SD profits were about £290 million). To put it in perspective the SD international profit in 2013 was about 5% of what he has currently invested in us. Their international business is peanuts (relatively) and fwiw so far none of it comes from the Far East. Makes you wonder why he does it then. Just for a laugh perhaps. That is certainly possible. A "vanity project" was always one of the contenders. The best scenario for us is that at some point soon he does actually decide to launch Sports Direct on the Far Eastern market and does decide to use us to help him. I'm sorry but if that is the case - the man actively and deliberately damaging the club's prospects for no reason other than to massage his own ego (this is surely even worse than using it to further Sports Direct) - then it only makes your continued defence of him and his actions even more staggering. was it a defence of ashley or an objective appraisal ? It was an attempt to be objective and go beyond the "he's making millions out of us" stereotype by looking at some facts, but it obviously wasn't well received. It was not a defence of the many shocking decisions he has made since he bought the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Yet some on here would have you believe he's not made a penny off us. Serious question - so far do you think he's made money out of owning the club? And if so how? He's getting millions of pounds' worth of worldwide exposure for his main interest (which coincidentally has increased in value by over 700% since he bought NUFC) via probably the world's most popular sporting event, for free. Just that. I just can't see that his ownership of us has had much to do with the growth of SD. If you look at the Sports Direct annual report you can see that he has virtually bought the entire UK market which accounts for more than 90% of their business. They basically own the UK market as a result of buying up the major brands and elimating the competition. The profit they made from international business was only about £11 million (total SD profits were about £290 million). To put it in perspective the SD international profit in 2013 was about 5% of what he has currently invested in us. Their international business is peanuts (relatively) and fwiw so far none of it comes from the Far East. Makes you wonder why he does it then. Just for a laugh perhaps. That is certainly possible. A "vanity project" was always one of the contenders. The best scenario for us is that at some point soon he does actually decide to launch Sports Direct on the Far Eastern market and does decide to use us to help him. I'm sorry but if that is the case - the man actively and deliberately damaging the club's prospects for no reason other than to massage his own ego (this is surely even worse than using it to further Sports Direct) - then it only makes your continued defence of him and his actions even more staggering. was it a defence of ashley or an objective appraisal ? It seems like its not good enough just to dislike Ashley or see the mistakes you believe he's made, absolutely everything has to be negative or you're part of his defence league. I'm not trying to have a go at anyone, but it does feel like that on here sometimes. Sad but true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Easily the most stingy and least ambitious owner any PL club could ask for. yet he's put in over 100million above the purchase price, is this right ? Was that because he didn't do the correct due dill before buying? Just another f*** up, got his fingers burnt, tried to spend his way out, got his fingers burnt again. Now we have conservative mediocrity. The main two things that due diligence would have revealed were that the debt was repayable on a change of ownership (that's a pretty common condition but its not always the case) and the club was in the process of losing about £30 million for the year. Without being entirely sure why he bought us (and no one is) it's not easy to call whether he would have cracked on with the takeover if he was aware of those two issues. The club is actually in a far better state and worth a lot more now than when he bought it that's for sure. Whether its worth more than he paid for it is another matter. I'll bite. "in the process of losing about £30 million for the year" To be clear on this, the vast majority of this £30m "loss" was amortisation of players. It's an accountancy tool (which is quite flawed in the football club model) used to help value the assets of a company. This is not the same as the club spending £30m more than it brought in for the year as most people would understand that statement, and it is not as if Ashley suddenly had to find an extra £30m. I think the actual cash flow loss for the year was under £10m and included significant costs due to the takeover (director payoffs, loan early repayment costs, aborted refinancing costs, etc). The club was actually one of eight PL clubs to make profit before player amortisation & trading. "due diligence" I'm sick of this term being bandied about. Due diligence implies having a team of accountants and business analysts looking at the books and the fine print of contracts, etc over a period of weeks to look for problems. What we are talking about here that he is supposed to have missed when buying the club is absolute basic stuff that could be answered with a few questions. Ask any supporter who was remotely interested in the club's finances at the time and they could have told you about the repayment clause in the stadium loan. If he had not tried to buy the club on the sly I am sure, even from his sick bed, Shepherd would have been only too happy to tell him about any problems with the club to try and put him off buying it. Not doing due diligence is the equivalent of buying a car without getting it checked over by the AA. If he really didn't know about loans becoming due or current year losses, then it's the equivalent of buying it without turning the engine on to see if it starts. Refinancing the debt with Barclays wasn't an option. They called it in and in so doing took a lot of risk off their books. In June 2007 the club was technically insolvent, by somewhere between £80million and £90 million from memory. Why would anyone lend us anything in those circumstances? The credit crunch was big at the time as well and banks were crapping themselves. Ashley had to cough up. No one would lend much on our balance sheet. The main thing that has been achieved under Ashley is some sort of financial stability on a year on year basis but we are still insolvent if he calls his debt in. Thats why he has to guarantee not to do so every year, and that guarantee is recorded in the accounts. Your memory is off by a bit I think. Net liabilities were £16m. It's not ideal by any means, but many clubs are technically insolvent including the likes of Everton & Villa. It's actually mainly due to the under-valuation of most club's squads due to how the accountancy process works. Our squad in the last accounts for example was worth only £37m apparently. That's just over 1 Andy Carroll (it was actually valued at only £30m when we sold him). Transfermarkt, which while by no means perfect looks to have given most of our players reasonable valuations, has the squad valued at nearly £150m No way the banks are going to pull the plug just because of an accounting practice poorly suited to the business. 2 years later when we got relegated we had a £36m overdraft. Not a loan secured against income or assets, a plain old bank overdraft. I think you over-egg the club's inability to get any loans, and in fact was in the process of a refinancing deal when Ashley bought the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 UV, interesting reading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Have always wondered about the wisdom of using player amortisation to indicate the financial health of a club when what people really want to see is the actual profit/loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Not knowing the terms of the loans exactly, he could have refinanced the debt OR put debt on the club at more favorable times and taken advantage of low interest rates and crawled back some of his cash. Would make it easier for him to sell as well if he was to get favorable financing due to his padded balance sheet. There's no reason for us to be "debt-free" by the way - we could easily have a favorable debt encumbrance and it would lower some of Mike's exposure. UV may be backing up what I said yesterday then. I still maintain that Mike Ashley would have access to fantastic debt terms and could have easily leveraged the club with a favorable loan or credit facility and his maximum exposure would have been minimized greatly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 He's a fucking fat wanker. Best post here iyam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Great read, UV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Top post UV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Top post Ryan_Taylor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Ryan Taylor and UV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 If he had not tried to buy the club on the sly I am sure, even from his sick bed, Shepherd would have been only too happy to tell him about any problems with the club to try and put him off buying it. Wasn't the club up for sale unofficially regardless? I'm pretty sure there were a few others who had a look at the books and decided against buying. If Hall and Shepherd didn't want to sell the club, Ashley could never have bought it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Have always wondered about the wisdom of using player amortisation to indicate the financial health of a club when what people really want to see is the actual profit/loss. I don't really have any knowledge or a view on this, but why is player amortisation such a bad thing to include? If you spend loads of money on an asset that quickly becomes worthless, that's bad right? If Mike Ashley could have easily refinanced the debt at favourable terms, why didn't he? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Have always wondered about the wisdom of using player amortisation to indicate the financial health of a club when what people really want to see is the actual profit/loss. I don't really have any knowledge or a view on this, but why is player amortisation such a bad thing to include? If you spend loads of money on an asset that quickly becomes worthless, that's bad right? If Mike Ashley could have easily refinanced the debt at favourable terms, why didn't he? It just seems really arbitrary to me, forgotten how it works exactly but you'll have a player in the squad who was brought through the youth system who is worth millions but not in the eyes of the books or a £10m purchase that loses £2m value every year over the course of their 5-year contract. Someone remind me exactly how it works and I'll remember why I disagree with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 If he had not tried to buy the club on the sly I am sure, even from his sick bed, Shepherd would have been only too happy to tell him about any problems with the club to try and put him off buying it. Wasn't the club up for sale unofficially regardless? I'm pretty sure there were a few others who had a look at the books and decided against buying. If Hall and Shepherd didn't want to sell the club, Ashley could never have bought it. The club spent £6 Million (I believe it was iirc) in the financial year previous to Ashley buying it in activities related to trying to sell it. Dividends were drying up/had dried up, they wanted out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 If you spend loads of money on an asset that quickly becomes worthless, that's bad right? FWIW it doesn't seem like anything as subjective as this (i.e. related to football performance/reality) is considered, it's just a figure based on cost that decreases through the course of the contract, whether relevant or not, as if the player's a piece of equipment that cannot actually increase in value (IIRC). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 We've been here many a time before and yet quayside in particular keeps banging this technically insolvent/would have done a Leeds/Portsmouth drum. Good post UV, as per. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts