mrmojorisin75 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 yeah think it was the 30 day payment (?) that was the surprise aye was it only 67m when he took over? so he's close to doubled the debt then? don't follow those finacial posts on here that closely Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 yeah think it was the 30 day payment (?) that was the surprise aye was it only 67m when he took over? so he's close to doubled the debt then? don't follow those finacial posts on here that closely Was that not the orginal figure when he took over...Then the club was relegated by his own stupidty which he then had to support out of his own pocket. I'm sure I read Barclays advised they wouldn't allow the club to have such a big overdraft in the Championship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 i thought the relegation & overdraft payoff cost us an extra 30m from his own pocket or thereabouts debt is 130m or something so how did it from 67m to 100m prior to the relegation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 yeah think it was the 30 day payment (?) that was the surprise aye was it only 67m when he took over? so he's close to doubled the debt then? don't follow those finacial posts on here that closely Well the mortgage or whatever it was came to that. There was also about £20m outstanding on transfers i think, sure they were complaining about that early on. Edit: That may have been part of the £67m though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 roughly 63m added to the debt seems a lot like if purchase debt was 67m, sure one of the lads will be along to explain it at some stage Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickthemagpie Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Am i the only one who, when he sees a picture of Mike Ashley, wants the next one to be of him with a hole the size of the bullet from a Barrett sniper rifle firmly in the centre of his forehead? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Am i the only one who, when he sees a picture of Mike Ashley, wants the next one to be of him with a hole the size of the bullet from a Barrett sniper rifle firmly in the centre of his forehead? Nope. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/12/newcastle-united-mike-ashley-shares-rangers The Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley has said he will not buy any more shares to help fund Rangers, a statement likely to dampen speculation that he could take over the former Scottish champions. Ashley has a stake of more than 4.5% in Rangers who are trying to raise around £4m from the sale of new shares to investors as the club seeks financial stability. “I will not be participating in the open offer which closes at 11am today,” Ashley said in a one-line statement, referring to the fund-raising by Rangers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sempuki Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/12/newcastle-united-mike-ashley-shares-rangers The Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley has said he will not buy any more shares to help fund Rangers, a statement likely to dampen speculation that he could take over the former Scottish champions. Ashley has a stake of more than 4.5% in Rangers who are trying to raise around £4m from the sale of new shares to investors as the club seeks financial stability. “I will not be participating in the open offer which closes at 11am today,” Ashley said in a one-line statement, referring to the fund-raising by Rangers. Shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 roughly 63m added to the debt seems a lot like if purchase debt was 67m, sure one of the lads will be along to explain it at some stage £39m was added in the following two years as short term loans to keep us going(£28m in relegation season), the debt he bought was £70m(according to Swiss Ramble) plus his Allardyce spending and it wouldnt be too far off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 yeah think it was the 30 day payment (?) that was the surprise aye was it only 67m when he took over? so he's close to doubled the debt then? don't follow those finacial posts on here that closely Well the mortgage or whatever it was came to that. There was also about £20m outstanding on transfers i think, sure they were complaining about that early on. Edit: That may have been part of the £67m though I think you're right about some of the extra debt being owed from transfers, which was leaked just before the first January transfer window he was here and used as the excuse why we brought nobody in then. The fact that this is how just about every club bought players and paid the fees in stages over the player's contract (and still do) and he is just about the only club owner that pays 100% up front eluded him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 yeah think it was the 30 day payment (?) that was the surprise aye was it only 67m when he took over? so he's close to doubled the debt then? don't follow those finacial posts on here that closely Well the mortgage or whatever it was came to that. There was also about £20m outstanding on transfers i think, sure they were complaining about that early on. Edit: That may have been part of the £67m though I think you're right about some of the extra debt being owed from transfers, which was leaked just before the first January transfer window and used as the excuse why we brought nobody in then. The fact that this is how just about every club bought players and paid the fees in stages over the player's contract (and still do) and he is just about the only club owner that pays 100% up front eluded him. Definitely remember them whinging about something to do with fees owed. Like you say its standard footballing practice, one of the many things he didnt understand buying when us on a whim with no knowledgable person alongside him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 yeah think it was the 30 day payment (?) that was the surprise aye was it only 67m when he took over? so he's close to doubled the debt then? don't follow those finacial posts on here that closely Well the mortgage or whatever it was came to that. There was also about £20m outstanding on transfers i think, sure they were complaining about that early on. Edit: That may have been part of the £67m though I think you're right about some of the extra debt being owed from transfers, which was leaked just before the first January transfer window and used as the excuse why we brought nobody in then. The fact that this is how just about every club bought players and paid the fees in stages over the player's contract (and still do) and he is just about the only club owner that pays 100% up front eluded him. Definitely remember them whinging about something to do with fees owed. Like you say its standard footballing practice, one of the many things he didnt understand buying when us on a whim with no knowledgable person alongside him. The main whinge was about the Owen deal, which was apparently paid for with up-front sponsorship money from Northern Rock. Meaning we basically had no main sponsor income until the deal ran out, but it wasn't debt as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 yeah think it was the 30 day payment (?) that was the surprise aye was it only 67m when he took over? so he's close to doubled the debt then? don't follow those finacial posts on here that closely Well the mortgage or whatever it was came to that. There was also about £20m outstanding on transfers i think, sure they were complaining about that early on. Edit: That may have been part of the £67m though I think you're right about some of the extra debt being owed from transfers, which was leaked just before the first January transfer window and used as the excuse why we brought nobody in then. The fact that this is how just about every club bought players and paid the fees in stages over the player's contract (and still do) and he is just about the only club owner that pays 100% up front eluded him. Definitely remember them whinging about something to do with fees owed. Like you say its standard footballing practice, one of the many things he didnt understand buying when us on a whim with no knowledgable person alongside him. The main whinge was about the Owen deal, which was apparently paid for with up-front sponsorship money from Northern Rock. Meaning we basically had no main sponsor income until the deal ran out, but it wasn't debt as such. Think Luque was another. They found out after he'd gone they still had (signifigant) money owed on him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Ah yeah the sponsorship money being spent really rings a bell now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/12/newcastle-united-mike-ashley-shares-rangers The Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley has said he will not buy any more shares to help fund Rangers, a statement likely to dampen speculation that he could take over the former Scottish champions. Ashley has a stake of more than 4.5% in Rangers who are trying to raise around £4m from the sale of new shares to investors as the club seeks financial stability. “I will not be participating in the open offer which closes at 11am today,” Ashley said in a one-line statement, referring to the fund-raising by Rangers. Got what he needed from them already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Not selling for at least this season and next from NUFC.co.uk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Club statement on website regards telegraph, I'm on my phone so can't post it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Newcastle United has today banned the Daily Telegraph with immediate effect following a report published in its paper yesterday (Thursday, 11th September), headlined 'Newcastle United For Sale As Ashley Eyes Rangers', as well as a follow-up article from the same reporter which appears in the Daily Telegraph today (Friday, 12th September). The reports by Luke Edwards on 11th September, and again today (12th September), are wholly inaccurate and written with the intention of unsettling the Club, players and its supporters. This is disgraceful journalism for which the Club and its supporters should receive a full and unreserved apology from those concerned. The truth is Mike Ashley remains committed to Newcastle United. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that for the remainder of this season and AT LEAST until the end of next season, Mike Ashley will not, under any circumstances, sell Newcastle United at any price. The Club cannot be stronger in stating its position on this matter. It is not acceptable for newspapers to print factually inaccurate reports that are damaging to the Club and to fail to check facts with Newcastle United ahead of publication and then expect to receive access to the Club. Newcastle United will not tolerate this and will take such action as it deems appropriate. The ban extends to all reporters working for, or freelancing on behalf of, the Daily Telegraph, as well as Luke Edwards in any capacity he may have working for the paper's sister title or on a freelance basis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast Boy Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 They do love a ban don't they Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Banned another paper Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Banning papers is so mong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I thought Edwards was already banned Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesPaul Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 They are truly shit at this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts